Holy Bible Scriptures: Hard to understand or easy to understand?

The thing is other Protestants are making the exact same claim as you and saying you are in error. They say the Bible interprets itself as well but they still come to a very different interpretation from you, why is that?.
You are saying they are being decieved, but they are making the exact same claim about you.

 

Those who were inspired to write the books of the Bible were not infallible but because what they said was under God's inspiration everything that is written in it is infallible.

 

That is really a vague statement because I don't know specifically whom you are referring to and what exactly they believe that would not be the same of what I believe. But the ironic thing about human beings is that they can believe one thing but practice something entirely different but yet still believe that they are doing what is right.

 

The Bible is made of up of different books, some books are to be taken literally, others are poetic, some are parabels. There is many criteria for reading the Bible, parts are to be read given the time frame and who it was aimed for at the time. Some parts are to be taken as historical truths, some are parabels used at explain things. Unlike my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christianity, as a Catholic I believe we need guidance in interpreting the full meaning of the Bible. The Bible is continuously revealing itself. Somethings that were not so obvious before have become clearer through the ages.
Also many people even atheists and other people from various denominations would say Jesus said many things which are worth following.

 

It is not very vague I am not going to list every protestant church that claims the Bible is their sole authority, yet have very much differing views. Some say baptism is neccessary some say it is not, each group giving Bible verses to support their view. But as usual very carfull as to not mention or not take into consideration verse that go against their view. There is a long list of various Protestant churches that make this claim yet differ in their interpretations if there was not then they would be all reading of the same hymn sheet, and be in agreement and there would be one big Protestant church equal in size if not bigger than the Catholic Church.

 

God inspired them and they wrote infallibly, the same as He inspires His Church. Can you not see your own contradiction.

If God can inspire people and permit them to act infallibly then why do you think He cannot do it now?.

Tell me do you believe Peter and the other apostles spoke infallibly regarding the teachings of Christ, after his death, resurection, and ascenion into heaven?

If not then it is possible they were teaching error?.

If you do believe they could speak infallibly on the teachings of Christianity, then why do you think the same Church can be any different now?.

 

That is why I said, they (human beings) can believe one thing but practice something entirely different but yet still believe that they are doing what is right. They all say what they say because they don't study the Bible and they chose to go by one or two scriptures but ignore the others they disagree with(I'm speaking what comes under the New Covenant and not the Old, because the Old Covenant has been made null and void by Jesus sacrifice).

Since you mentioned baptism I will address that.

The Bible never said that it is necessary (there have been individuals in the Bible that received the Holy Spirit and were not baptized, but did after and God's prophets were never baptized) but at the same time who would refuse to if they want to follow Jesus' example? So it’s not a matter of if its necessary or not but what one naturally want to do. It’s like a man that just married his wife......is it necessary for him to have sex with his wife or is it something that he will want to do? Which man that claims to love his wife would refuse to have sex with her?

 

The Bible is not hard to understand but an awful lot of it is all but impossible for the unsaved heart to accept So a mind attached to such a heart prefers confusion to a truth that is too painful to bear.

 

Can you not see you are exactly making my point you are saying they are wrong, but they are saying the same thing about you.
Protestants do this all the time, claiming they are right and the way they have interpretted the Bible is correct and that those who say differently are incorrect.
The Bible is a book, it is authorative, but it does not interpret itself as Protestants claim, it cannot literally speak. What you take from the Bible is what You believe it means. The Catholic Church as an institution and guidance from the Holy Spirit interprets it and the Catholic Church has assurance from Christ it will not error. Each individual should not interpret the meanings of the Bible for themself even with what they believe to be guidance from the Holy Spirit, the 'Holy Spirit' may in fact not actually be the 'Holy Spirit' at all it maybe their own subconcious telling them what to take from the verses that which is already in accordance with their own theology.

 

There is no contradiction. If someone that knows more about something (like a mechanic) than you do tell you to this or that to get the engine working right and you do exactly what he tells you to do you are safe, because you are doing what that expert tells you. But if you do something that is outside of your knowledge (like trying to fix the engine of your car for example) without the advice of a mechanic then the result may not be what you would like.

God did not make them infallible He gave them the ability to want to do what God tells them to do. If you notice in the Bible that only those who believe God's word are the ones that want to obey God, while those who don't find all sort of reasons not to.

Yes!! After all, they were eye witness of what they wrote. Anyone that disbelieve what they wrote are not doing so based on any fact that they were there and therefore would have any authority to say that what they wrote is not true…..they are just giving their personal opinion, which at the root of it is based on disbelief.

Nope!!

As long as whoever is saying what they are saying is backed up by the scriptures then what he or she is saying is true and accurate.

 

Unless they are able to back it up with scripture then they are only expressing their personal opinion. So unless they can show me for example where in the Bible it says that I am in error about baptism they are wrong. The interpretation of one part of a chapter, verse or book can be found in that same chapter, verse, that same book or even another book in the Bible.

Here's an example.

Peter's vision

Acts 10:9-18 (ASV)
9 Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour:
10 and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance;
11 and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth:
12 wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.
15 And a voice came unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.
16 And this was done thrice: and straightway the vessel was received up into heaven.
17 Now while Peter was much perplexed in himself what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men that were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate,
18 and called and asked whether Simon, who was surnamed Peter, were lodging there.

The interpretation of Peter's vision


Acts 10:19-33 (ASV)
19 And while Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
20 But arise, and get thee down, and go with them, nothing doubting: for I have sent them.
21 And Peter went down to the men, and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?
22 And they said, Cornelius a centurion, a righteous man and one that feareth God, and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews, was warned of God by a holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words from thee.
23 So he called them in and lodged them. And on the morrow he arose and went forth with them, and certain of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24 And on the morrow they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his kinsmen and his near friends.
25 And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter raised him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and findeth many come together:
28 and he said unto them, Ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation; and yet unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean:
29 wherefore also I came without gainsaying, when I was sent for. I ask therefore with what intent ye sent for me.
30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago, until this hour, I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house; and behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel,
31 and saith, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call unto thee Simon, who is surnamed Peter; he lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner, by the sea side.
33 Forthwith therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore we are all here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that have been commanded thee of the Lord.

 

But very few Christians understand the Bible as infallible. In fact, that's Islam's thing. Most Christians will tell you that the Bible is not the verbatim word of God. And therein lies the answer, if you're a believer. To see why the Scriptures can be vague, one need only look at a kind of cosmic game of telephone. Every single person, Christian or otherwise, accepts that the physical ink was put onto physical paper by human beings, even if it was divinely inspired, humans did the literal writing. So let's accept that it is divinely inspired. That means that the omniscient God relayed His message to not omniscient human beings, and so, obviously, something will have been lost, because no human can comprehend the divine. Further, in addition to being "dumbed down" the information would have been filtered through the life experiences and prejudices of the human author. There would be loss here as well. Finally, almost no one reads the Scriptures in Aramaic anymore. Most read it in their native language, or if you're especially educated, maybe Latin or Greek. And as with any translation, certain subtleties are lost when the Bible is translated. So there's a possible answer if you're a believer. The passages are vague not because the passages were meant to be vague (although, maybe many were.) But rather because the Bible comes to us through a cosmic game of telephone.

 

Not everything in the Bible is written in those who were inspired own words.......some things in it are God's direct own words or command. For example, God instructed Noah how to build the Ark. Another example, the clothing that the priests were to wear and the temple and how the sacrifices were to be administered and so on.

But any so-call Christian that says the Bible is not infallible is not what they make themselves out to be. But then, maybe that’s why so many do not read it let alone study it or even really understand it. But I would love to know what denomination those "Christians" belong to because I have never heard any say that.

 

You are doing exactly what I said all Protestants do. You have given only verses that support your argument that baptism is not neccessary, other Protestants who claim baptism is neccessary as do Catholics also can also quote verse in favour of their intepretation.
Ezekiel 3 6:25, Matthew 28:19, Mark 1:4, Mark 16:16, Luke 3:3, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-41, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-41, Corinthians 6:11, Corinthians 10:1-2, Galatians 3:26-27, Ephesians 4:5, Ephesians 5:26, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:20-21.

I canalso quote verse that supports infant baptism.

Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, Acts 18:8, 1 Corinthians 1:16 (Many biblical passages connect household and children) Genesis 18:19, Genesis 47:12, Numbers 18:11, Chronicles 10:6, Matthew 19:29, 1 Timothy 3:12

In other biblical passages, entire households are referred to as being saved:
Luke 19:9, Acts 11:14, Acts 16:31.

Infants are part of the covenant and salvation.
Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 10:16, Deuteronomy 29:10-12, Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, Jeremiah 9:25, Matthew 19:14, Romans 2:26-29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13.

Protestants quote Bible verses to support their own postion, but ignore the verses that quite evidently are in opposition to their theology. I do not believe it is intentional, I think they are looking for verses to support their view, when they find the verses they think that proves I'm right, and they simply ignore other verses that are in complete contradiction to their view.

Wake up to your hypocrisy. You claim all these other Protestant churches that say they go by the Bible and use it as their sole authority are wrong. And they are making the same claim about you. The thing is the Bible should be interpretted through the magesterium of the Church.

 

First thing: Ezekiel 36:25 is not baptism, baptism means to immersion, submersion and emergence. The second thing: baptism is supported in the Bible and all those who believed the gospel were baptized. But there is nothing special about being baptized other than it being a testament that one has come under a particular belief or teaching. It also symbolized one's death and coming up a new creation. I have also said that some people had received the Holy Spirit and were not baptized but did so or was allowed to after the evidence of them receiving the Holy Spirit was expressed. And I also asked who would refuse to be baptized? But nowhere in the Bible does it say that baptism is necessary for salvation any more than reading the Bible, but a child of God would never refuse to read the Bible.

Well, one would be assuming that infants were baptized just because it says his household. In fact one would also be assuming that such a person's household had infants. And to clarify again, sprinkling and being baptized are two different things. One has to do with sprinkling and the other have to do with putting the person under water and immediately bring them back up.

 

I would compare it to the Constitution. It is only useful when it can be used to justify our position. If it contradicts our position, then it becomes a living breathing ever changing document that needs revision to keep up with modern times.

 

How do you explain Mark 16:16?
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Notice that being "saved" is dependent upon two actions: 1) believing; 2) being baptized.

BTW, that passage is attributed to Jesus. Are you calling him a liar?

 

If you read it carefully you will see that it only say those who don't believe will be condemned. The problem though is people today do not understand what baptism means…..it means professing publicly that the individual comes under the teaching of a particular person. That is why Jesus got baptized by John…..it was not a matter that His salvation was dependent on that but to show the world whose teaching He is under. The next problem is we live in an age in which people are so rebellious that the only way they will do what is right is if they are compelled by law to do it, so they can’t imagine God’s people knowing and wanting to do something without being compelled or threatened to do it. To the rebellious that is what Christianity and religion is about…..do this or that or else.

 

I can't even make it all the way through the Book of genesis. I can no longer suspend reality once I get to chapter 5 and the list of the descendants of Adam. Come on... people living 1000 years?! Bible says it so it must be true! I have talked to a few Christians about this, and they either defend it as 100% truth, or they say look beyond the words to see the bigger picture.

I am more a fan of the New Testament anyway.

 

Close but no cigar...GOD made us with limited knowledge because he wants certain things to not be known. that's just how it is. And mankind has to accept that.

So when GOD inspired mankind to write the pages of the Bible, it was gonna have some vagueness in it, and that alone shows that GOD's mind is too powerful to comprehend, so we were given only a morsel of his abilities by have 30+ authors write the Bible but none of them knew each other, but all their strories connect like dominos thru time all the way to the end.

The Bible is indeed mankind's timeline on earth.

 

"GOD made us with limited knowledge because he wants certain things to not be known. that's just how it is. And mankind has to accept that."

I guess you are the exception to this though. You speak as though you are an authority on the subject, here to educate us all, when in reality you are just like the rest of us... you have an opinion.

I am not so arrogant as to think I can speak for God. So come down off your high horse... if anything it just makes you look like an arrogant hypocrite.

 

Chances are they don't understand most of the Bible themselves because most professing Christians do not study most of the scriptures. But I'm not saying that a true child of God will understand everything in the Bible, but they study it regularly and continue to grow in understanding. The Bible is a book of faith and there are things in it that you have to take it on faith.....the Bible say that just shall live by faith......without faith you cannot please God.

 

Why did you not know about how Acts describes the early church's socialistic model, and complained that you would have to read the whole darn thing when I didn't give you a verse to point out what is common knowledge?
Seems like the lady doth protest too much.

 

if the bible were the word of a God, when someone read it, they would just go... duh, why didn't I see that before, there would be no need to defend the bible, it would just make sense, why doesn't the bible do this, because obviously man wrote the bible, not a god


.

 

You assume that human beings are not hostile to what God stands for......those same human beings that are murdering each other, polluting the environment and lying stealing. Human beings are hostile against each other and you think that human beings would be receptive to His word if it was...you are fooling yourself. The day when human beings turn from being self-serving and seek the interest of others then they will value His word.