Catholic Attack on Literal Interpretation of Scripture: Full of Holes and Logical Fallacies

[Mr GLee]

Where does scripture say they had sex? Or children?

What difference would that make?

More than one kind of virgin

They gave birth to a human. Dying mankind must be born again. It applies to all dying flesh .The Son of man Jesus became the first born of many sons of God (Christians) the chaste virgin bride the church. What we will be is not revealed.

Paul suffered in pains of birth until Christ was formed in Timothy a member of the chaste virgin bride the church .Our blessed sister in the lord Mary and Peter are included in spiritual the family that calls no man on earth Holy Father,Holy See .One is our invisible Holy Father in heaven

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a "chaste virgin" to Christ

Galation 4: 19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

A wedding picture in a parable below

Revelation 12King James Version12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

 

[Mr GLee]

Sproul gave an interpretation of a "literal" reading of the Bible which appears quite similar to the historical-critical method which is the Catholic Church's recommended method.

Should Catholics read the Bible literally or symbolically?

It depends on the intent of the particular biblical author. If he intended what he wrote to be taken literally, then we should take it literally. If he meant for it to be taken symbolically, then that’s how we should take it. Although this principle is easy to state, it isn’t always easy to apply.​

It's more of what do they do with the literal and how can we obey the loving commandment to study rightly dividing the book of prophecy the Bible as God way of seeking His approval ?

Do they remember that without parables used to hide the unseen spiritual understanding of God. The understanding of faith.? In that way we look to the literal historical and divide or mix the temporal historical thing seen with that not seen the eternal things of faith.

If no mixing according to the prescription given to us in 2 Corinthians 4:18 then no gospel rest (Hebrew 4) simply a historical view looking to the temporal things seen'

2 Corinthians 4:18 King James Version While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Hebrews 4:1-2King James Version Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

No mix no gospel. Know the Mix. Know the mystery of faith

 

[Frank Robert]

The difference is that the Catholics do not do what they say they do. And by historical they often mean simply what a particular ECF said that agrees with their teachings and ignore what any other ECF said in opposition to it. You do not find them often quoting Agustine. By historical they often mean the history of the RCC.

You are confusing tradition with the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation. The CC wisely leaves interpretation up to the individuals when it is not a matter of faith or morals. Personally, I like CC philosophy because why bother with things that don't matter. It leaves a lot of room to maneuver in for the heterodox like myself.

 

[makesends]

When was RC Sproul ordained or made an apostle?
Then he has no authority

I never claimed he had any authority. What has that to do with anything? My point in bringing him up was because he can say what I wish I knew how to say, in a manner that is pretty easily understood. That, and because he more closely represents those you attempt to defeat here than I do.

 

[makesends]

Are you saying that the "literalist" approach according to Sproul considers the literary, historical, and cultural context of each passage while also acknowledging the theological messages and spiritual truths conveyed?

Of course --that and much more.

 

[Arial]

You are confusing tradition with the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation. The CC wisely leaves interpretation up to the individuals when it is not a matter of faith or morals. Personally, I like CC philosophy because why bother with things that don't matter. It leaves a lot of room to maneuver in for the heterodox like myself.

I am not confusing anything. They get their tradition from an interpretation of the Bible that starts with them as THE CHURCH and Peter being a pope, their priests lesser priests than Christ but intercessory priests that dispense saving grace none the less, you have to go through them to get to Mary to get to Christ, their clergy being the apostles. All antithetical to the Bible. And the pope is called Holy Father---a name of God only---no matter how they try to soften that.

 

[Arial]

It’s faith alone but that faith is not alone!

It’s literal but it’s really not literal!

You do not get to dictate what something means in the way in which it is used, and then argue from your uninformed view.

Is Jesus the son of Joseph as scripture literally says?
Yes or no?
I say yes, and I still believe the virgin birth!

Yes He is by adoption according to Israel custom. But He is also a Son of David through Mary. But your trying to use that to prove the Bible is not interpreted according to the type of literature it is, is stupid. And I am not going to attempt a conversation with stupid.

 

[Mr GLee]

You are confusing tradition with the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation. The CC wisely leaves interpretation up to the individuals when it is not a matter of faith or morals. Personally, I like CC philosophy because why bother with things that don't matter. It leaves a lot of room to maneuver in for the heterodox like myself.

The bible its entirety is the word of God alone .(sola scriptura) It has no equal and cannot it be compared to to the different oral traditions that mankind uses .

Peter our brother in the Lord coming out from under a law of men called a "law of the fathers" I heard it through the legion of fathers grapevine .

In one instance after again being reinstated. Peter started in John 21 another of the oral traditions like that of Matthew 16 . Peter having the false authority as a antichrist a false prophet,false apostle forbid the lord of carrying out the gospel key .

Our Holy Father revealed to him not to think of the temporal things seen rather than the unseen things coming from the labor of Christs love.

Peter following the traditions of the lying fathers that mankind does not die (leaving room for false doctrine like purgatory a second chance to suffer and wonder with no end in sight .Peter went to town and started a new oral tradition that John would not die .

Jesus the apostle given words from the Father corrected the lie (false prophecy) and stated if every time he did that we would need a bigger planet to hold the volumes upon volumes

I would think bigger than the Vatican library full of oral traditions as a law of the fathers

John 21:22-25 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

You world think one warning would be enough

Revelation remains the last chapter in the book of prophecy (sola scriptura) The warning to not add or subtract rather than rightly divide remains .

 

[Frank Robert]

I am not confusing anything. They get their tradition from an interpretation of the Bible that starts with them as THE CHURCH and Peter being a pope, their priests lesser priests than Christ but intercessory priests that dispense saving grace none the less, you have to go through them to get to Mary to get to Christ, their clergy being the apostles. All antithetical to the Bible. And the pope is called Holy Father---a name of God only---no matter how they try to soften that.

Not sure what you are saying but your opinions sound pretty confused to me.

You are right that the CC traces its origins back to the teachings and ministry of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD when Jesus appointed the Apostle Peter as the leader of the Church. That is tradition.

Today, Christianity isn’t dying, but Protestantism is. Through the last 100 years the Catholic Church has expanded more than any time in its 2,000 years of existence.” Today there are 1.36 billion Catholics under one Church." Compare that to the 800,000 Protestants today that are splinted into thousands of denominations with uncountable differences and contradictions.

 

[Mr GLee]

Lk 1:34 no sex
Lk 1:43 mother of God

IT’s possible to consent to marriage for the sake of the child Jesus since marriage is made by consent not sex like Adam and Eve

The word virgin is used more than one way.

Satan would have mankind believe it has something to do with literal intercource . The whole church is reckoned as the chaste virgin bride .
Those who have not served the strange woman under the influence of the legion. Satan. a violation of the first commandment. Have no other gods before him. Not a legion . Many gods in the likeness of dying mankind . Some are required to call patron saints.

Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women (strange gods) for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

The gospel has nothing to do with literal sex. It has to do with the unseen Holy Father bringing new born again spirit life through his incorruptible born again seed. Nothing to do with dying flesh and blood of the powerless We are not saved by the corruptible seed of our blessed sister in the lord, Mary. She was born again also

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

I would ask. Why would a person have to suffer wonder , suffer wonder with no end in sight . And call that born again?

 

[Arial]

You are right that the CC traces its origins back to the teachings and ministry of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD when Jesus appointed the Apostle Peter as the leader of the Church. That is tradition.

It is Catholic tradition. Tradition is not the same thing as truth.

Today, Christianity isn’t dying, but Protestantism is. Through the last 100 years the Catholic Church has expanded more than any time in its 2,000 years of existence.” Today there are 1.36 billion Catholics under one Church." Compare that to the 800,000 Protestants today that are splinted into thousands of denominations with uncountable differences and contradictions.

As of 2020 there were an estimated 1.9 billion Muslim followers. Is that supposed to mean something. And wasn't it Jesus who said, "Wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many there be that go through it. Narrow is the gate that leads to life and few there be that find it."

 

[Frank Robert]

The bible its entirety is the word of God alone .(sola scriptura) It has no equal and cannot it be compared to to the different oral traditions that mankind uses .

Please show us where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible? If SS can not be found taught in Scripture (and if Scripture teaches what sola Scriptura denies: that neither Tradition nor Church possess binding, infallible authority, as Scripture does, then it is not self-consistent ,nor is it a true and a binding belief.

 

[Frank Robert]

It is Catholic tradition. Tradition is not the same thing as truth.

Matthew 16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

As of 2020 there were an estimated 1.9 billion Muslim followers. Is that supposed to mean something.

Muslims have a better record than of denominations or sects. I believe there are only 7 or 8.

And wasn't it Jesus who said, "Wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many there be that go through it. Narrow is the gate that leads to life and few there be that find it."

I think that goes directly to your misunderstanding of Christian brotherhood in Christ.

 

[fastfredy0]

Well, if nothing else, the thread illustrates that a large section of the bible interpretation crowd has an interpretation problem. Good Luck ... or .. my God's providence be kind to you.

 

[donadams]

Selective literal interpretation at best!

Certainly John chapter 6 cannot be taken literally!

Mt 26:26-39 Jn 6:51-58 1 Cor 11:23-25 not taken literally.

James is not taken literally not even scripture in the tortured mind of Luther.

Matt 17:20 not taken literally.

Lk 1:43 not taken literally.

Thanks

 

[fastfredy0]

Selective literal interpretation at best!

Certainly John chapter 6 cannot be taken literally!

Mt 26:26-39 Jn 6:51-58 1 Cor 11:23-25 not taken literally.

James is not taken literally not even scripture in the tortured mind of Luther.

Matt 17:20 not taken literally.

Lk 1:43 not taken literally.

I always use a liberal, none literal interpretation of John chapters 22-30.

 

[prism]

Old Testament prophecies of Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally, so where did the hermeneutics change gear?

 

[donadams]

Sproul gave an interpretation of a "literal" reading of the Bible which appears quite similar to the historical-critical method which is the Catholic Church's recommended method.

Should Catholics read the Bible literally or symbolically?

It depends on the intent of the particular biblical author. If he intended what he wrote to be taken literally, then we should take it literally. If he meant for it to be taken symbolically, then that’s how we should take it. Although this principle is easy to state, it isn’t always easy to apply.​

RC Sproul? What happened to Jn 6:68?

 

[donadams]

I always use a liberal, none literal interpretation of John chapters 22-30.

What about Gen 13:8 are Abraham and lot brothers?

 

[donadams]

As long as you keep believing that and drinking that Kool - Aid, you will never see the truth in the scriptures that the rock is always used for reference to deity and therefore Jesus was announcing Himself as that rock that the church is built upon.

Word search For Rock = Deity At Bible Gateway

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Did you know that was not when Jesus called him Peter first?

John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
You should read that event again that has been misapplied by Catholic Church.
Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus is not rewarding Peter for saying that when the Father revealed it to him to say that and so that is not why he was called Peter..

It is upon what Peter had said about Christ is the rock the church is to be built on, as Jesus is the chief cornerstone.

Paul said so.

Ephesians 2:20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Peter especially said so as Peter is not the rock the church is built upon but he is one of the stones as the other apostle and ALL believers are..

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

So believe Peter and not the RCC that Jesus is the rock the church is built upon as all believers in Jesus Christ is His Church.

One thing you should ask yourself and that is if the RCC was to rule over all churches, why doesn't Revelation direct those 5 erring churches to the RCC and commend the 2 good churches as if yielding to the RCC as if that is how they are to hold fast?

So go to Jesus Christ in prayer and ask Him for help to see the truth in His words if you love Him to want to abide in Him & His words as his disciples.

Is Jesus Christ the king?