It rather comes down to why they believe what they do.

Yeah, you can find people who say what you heard. I suspect that's the more common response.

I am convicted that way of belief cannot be gotten from G-ds word and in fact contradicts it and does violence to it.

Peoples interpretation is not the bible.

Full stop.

The standard is not and cannot be "what do the most people or the people who I like say it means." It has to be the meaning the text contains, or we aren't basing our beliefs on the text.

You see the same thing with american courts and polticians regarding constitutional law. They play games with the text and subvert it, and yet say they are "being constitutional." It's disrespectful to the authors of that text and false.

How do you know if the bible is clear on a text, without going to that text, reading it for yourself, and trying to see what the text itself contains, instead of trying to find what you or I want to find in it?  The author should be the one that speaks, not us. Especially we shouldn't do the "but if I speculate in this spot where the text doesn't talk about what I'm interested in, I can get X." That's putting words in G-d's mouth.

Great post @wtfboombrb super great! I can understand why you find yourself posting here less and less. You are not alone. I have received many private messages (and other members have as well) from people who have said the same thing. More people than we can know read theses threads but very few post in them as they feel intimidated and are fearful of being attacked or chastised for their opinions, thoughts and questions.

Nonetheless, they do read what others say and I have no doubt that your post will bring them comfort and enlighten them as well.

I of course accept your apology and I too am sorry if I have offended you in anyway. Thank you for your post and thanks for the scripture you included. I for one found it very helpful! I’m sure others did too!

Thank you for your post @FlashMan-7K

I agree that we should go to the text and read it for ourselves. And I have done this for myself. I am familiar with what Judaism teaches and the different beliefs Jews hold from others and each other. However, my questions, in part, have to do with what Christians believe. I can not read the Bible and decipher what Christians believe, I’ve tried.

Part of that reason is simply because not all Christians believe the same thing. Another reason is not all Christians read the same Bible. For example, I only recently learned that the Catholic Bible has more books in it than the Protestant Bible.

Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that picking up any Christian Bible and reading it, and walking away with an understanding of things like the Trinity, what constitutes a sin, what are the new laws, etc. isn’t as easy as it sounds.

It’s no wonder so many people just stick to what they were taught when they were growing up.

Even so, I pray to G-d everyday and I fully believe that He is helping me. I believe He will help anyone and everyone who asks Him to and one day we will all understand everything much better than we ever thought we could.

Well, if you don't know what a christian is and what the beliefs are that make the system up, you can't identify it by simply asking everyone who claims the name what they believe, because (as I think you've found) there are multiple different things using the same name.

You're hunting the snark, when you don't know what the snark is, so you can't tell if you've found it.

The apocrypha ... those extra books ... were not canonized (declared to be) a part of the bible by catholics till 1546. That was a response to the protestant reformation at least in part to support catholic peculiarities. I'd also point out, you'll notice they aren't referred to by the non-apocraphal books (citations), and they don't align with the rest of the teachings in the bible. The jews never treated them as G-d's word.

The catholics will of course dispute this (at least the parts besides those books being canonized in 1546) ... if you're interested, you can poke your head into the history of what happened and why and see for yourself.

Reading to get all the various legos and than seeing how they fit is and can be a hard task. Some things are far more obvious and easier than others - easier to get legos, as it were, and the individual pieces are easier to see how they fit together. Some pieces and constructions we are still trying to figure out.

Every piece and way to assemble it is argued over, regardless if it's easy to get or not (that's just humanity being humanity).

So, you pretty much have to decide something, anything, about what you will and will not consider that snark you're hunting to be, or you're likely already stuck. 2000 years of history of human bickering falling under the umbrella of the name 'christian' is too much for anyone to pin down meaningfully. That's one reason why I point @ the text as the definer (and no, the apocrypha isn't a part of that text).

1) Why would you make a false statement that is so easily disproven by a cursory google search? You are implying (I would argue outright stating) that the 7 Deuterocanonical books were ADDED to the Bible in 1546, so that they never appeared in the Bible before hand. This is easily proven false by simple searches. Why say that?
    The Deuterocanonical books were always a part of the Septuagint used by the Apostles, so they must have believed that it was inspired as well. The main Council from the 4th Century is the Council of Rome in 382AD lead by Pope Damasus I. This council was charged with creating a list of canonical books for St Jerome's vulgate, and that list concluded with 73 books, so they included the Deuterocanonical books. After this, Damasus I asked the bishops of North Africa to debate on this list and either confirm it or change it. St Augustine was present at these councils in North Africa. We have the Council of Hippo and the Council of Carthage (393 and 397AD respectfully), in which both of these councils confirmed the list given to them by the Pope, that the biblical canon consisted of 73 books. This was re-affirmed at the Council of Trent due to the Protestant Reformation. Typically, in Church History, an ecumenical council was really only ever called when beliefs held by the Church became attacked or the source of heavy debate and possible schism. The fact that we do not see another Council called to settle the canon until Trent signifies the fact that the Church universally approved of the list of books for the Bible until the Reformation.
          Eastern Orthodox Christians use these books too, which should automatically disprove the argument that Catholics never affirmed those books as scripture until the council of Trent because if they hadn't been scripture at the time of the Great Schism (the event where Catholics and Orthodox went their separate ways) which was in 1054 almost 500 years before Luther, they wouldn't be in our Bibles and yet they are. Further on this point the Oriental or Coptic Orthodox Church, which was isolated from the rest of the church for a very, very long time from quite early on until basically the modern Era, also uses them, in fact, they use an even older canon that has more books that we and Catholics have.

2) The second contention, that these books aren't "cited" in the other books of the Bible is likewise easily proven false. Seriously, a simple search shows this.
Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.” The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times. I can LITERALLY provide over a hundred right now, or better yet:Deuterocanonical references
Not to mention the fact that NUMEROUS Early Church Fathers quoted them as Scriptural.
    Moreover, what a weird argument to try and use; The other books don't cite them. Who says they have to in order to be valid? If that's the case, then these books , Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, (and some argue Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, Judges, Ruth, Zephaniah in the Protocanonical) shouldn't be in there as they are not directly quoted, and these non-Canonical books would be included:
Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible

3) Your argument about Jews not including them in their canon is also odd given that a) there was no such thing as a unified Jewish people and b) there was no such thing as a "unified" Jewish canon until AFTER the Christian canon.
When some Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the Deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them, this is problematic just by looking at the History of Jewish canon. The first supposed Jewish council that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 – 100 A.D.) was long considered the first supposed council. Now, recent scholarship (within last 60 years) has made it clear that this council may not have even occurred. If it DID occur, we know that the following is true: (not mine)

The discussion over the books of the canon of the Old Testament continued among the Jews long after Jabneh, which demonstrates that the canon was still under discussion in the third century—well beyond the apostolic period. The challenges to canonicity at Jabneh involved only Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, but the debate over the canon continued past Jabneh, even into the second and third centuries. Even the Hebrew canon accepted by Protestants today was disputed by the Jews for two hundred years after Christ.

Some cautionary points should be noted here:

1) Although some Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing: There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.

2) Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.

3) A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.

4) We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).

@FlashMan-7k

I agree with you @FlashMan-7k in that you can’t just simply ask Christians what they believe and then you’ll understand. I ask questions because I learn a lot from them. Many times people will answer my questions and in doing so refer to things I’ve never heard of or thought about. When that happens I look up new things, ask more questions and learn.

I also read and have read many biblical texts (looked to other resources as well) and do a fair amount of studying. Most importantly though, I ask G-d to help me along the way. I may not understand what the “snark” is but He surely does so I’m not at all concerned about getting stuck.


Perhaps when I go to look up the things you’ve shared with me about the apocrypha along with what others have said about it in re to your comment I will learn something else I didn’t know.

Perhaps I will come across something new G-d wanted to show me and this is how He chose to unveil it.


I don’t know. But not to worry, I’m not searching for answers on my own.

As always, thank you for your comment and the information you shared therein!

bold: Hence the core issue with sola scriptura.
italic: Yes, but there has to be true openness. Expectations are preconceived resentments, as the saying goes.

I have an issue with someone picking a verse from many and deciding that they alone know what it means...

That's why we have creeds and common sense.  I follow the Westminister Confession of Faith.  If someone just came up with something that went against it and taught that from the pulpit they would be disciplined.

There are other things that are up for interpretation.

Jesus wept.  What does that mean?  Did He cry for hours?  Did He sob a few times?  What exactly was the extent of His weeping?  You and I can have different opinions and still be saved.  That is what most interpretation is in a solid denomination.  There are major points and minor ones.  We agree on the major points.

I agree with you on both points @cavsct1983

Unfortunately, “common sense” does not exist.

Seriously?

Seriously. “Common sense” isn’t actually common at all. It’s too ambiguous, no one agrees on what it means, and what we think is “common sense” is highly influenced by how we were raised, our environment and our individual beliefs.

For ex, you and I might think it’s common sense to look both ways before we cross the street. Seems like common sense doesn’t it? I can tell you I’ve been to a country (I won’t say which one) where almost nobody does it.

Abortion is another example, I think abortion should be illegal. I think it should be common sense that killing babies is wrong. Obviously, it’s not common sense b/c it’s currently perfectly legal to have an abortion.

The whole transgender issue is perhaps the best example of where common sense doesn’t exist. I think it is common sense that Men who were born male should not be allowed to compete in sports against women who were born female. I can’t believe it’s even a question, much less allowed and championed. But here we are.

I wish common sense existed, believe me, and I wish it aligned perfectly with what I consider to be common sense, but it doesn’t.

I would argue that common sense does exist, though I grant that it can vary to some extent among different societies, which is a little outside of the central point.  More directly as it pertains to moral issues, I believe that natural law is written in the heart of every man.  Anyone who has reached the age of reason would agree that murdering babies, insulting someone's mother, or hurting their best friend is wrong.  Now, these same people have probably at some point in time hurt their best friend or insulted his mother, but that's a different from the fact that they know it is wrong.

Yeah, I still haven't worked this out completely yet, but I am of the opinion so far that common sense and natural law are not one in the same. That natural law exists in undeniable, and right now I am thinking that morality lies within its purview as opposed to within that of common sense.

Again, I have to work this out still.

I won't be so presumptuous as to pretend to work it out for you, but as you do, be cautious that the modern understanding or definition of common sense is not quite the same as the scholastic one.  The former seems more closely aligned with the faculty of the intellect.

You argue like a leftist.

If I meant something, I'd say it, and you don't need to stoop to the media tactic of "well you're implying" which is usually nothing more than "I thought this when I read what you said, so therefore, that's what you said."

Canonized does not mean not used. It doesn't mean nobody could have believed they were inspired. Etc. It means that - as I specifically posted - the roman catholic church didn't canonize them as a part of the bible till 1546. Not more. Not less.

EO's reject the papacy and split off to do their own thing over the fillioque ... what, over a millenium ago? Why would you care if they side with you or not?
Your kelly quote only says that the books were in the same print. It doesn't say they thought they were God's words.

Septuagint is not the apocryhpha. You're functioning like a sophist, using a false head-fake. I said "you'll notice they aren't referred to by the non-apocryphal books (citations)" and to further clarify that, the non-apocryphal books cite the other books of the bible extensively and show some pretty close familiarity with the content and teaching of those books. That is NOT "but the early church used and cited the septuigant" ... the septuigant is NOT the apocryphal books.

You're not even arguing about what I said, you set up something different, tried to knock that down, and act like you *didn't* set up and attack something different.

I'm wondering if you've even realized that you've done this and that it's dishonest.

If there was no unified jewish people, the first part of your statement "your argument about the jews" is irrational and can't mean anything, because it refers to nothing if the rest of your sentence is true. You're saying that there is a unified group, and than argue that there isn't a unified group. Which is it?

This kind of stuff is why I dislike having to even read your replies to my posts - you argue like a sophist and dishonestly when you get pushed.

Thank you for saying that's not an issue with sola scriptura. I'm glad somebody finally agrees on this.

Agrees on what?

inside

Hell no.

Everyone and everything will be reconciled to God. The Bible is clear on this. The early church was clear on it too.

The early church also recognized holy pagans who were saved.

That you agreed with and believe that people having different interpretations of the bible has nothing to do with sola scriptura.

That's not what I got out of his post at all. I could be wrong, but I took it as it is precisely the fault of sola scriptura, for even if man WERE or COULD be completely open when reading Scripture, human nature and the inherent nature of SS would still lead to the difficulties we have today.

Again, I could be wrong so we'll have to wait to see what cavsct says.

I have often wondered if there are other ways to salvation, and have thought a lot my entire life over Luke 23, with the 2 criminals crucified with Jesus.

In that chapter one of the criminals was mocking Jesus along with everyone else. The other criminal stands up for Jesus even when his followers didn't.



We don't really know anything about these criminals, but in that mere act of defending Jesus, that one criminal was saved. He didn't repent his sins. Did not ask Jesus to forgive him. Only defended Jesus.

I've often though about these passages not only because there might be another way to salvation. This was the only person "saved" directly by Jesus. Quite literally the moment that changed the world as we know it.

He most certainly did repent his sins, asked God for forgiveness, and, asked to be saved:

“We, indeed, are justly condemned to death on the cross: but this man hath done no evil.”

This is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and a confession in one. "I did wrong and deserve death"

Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

The entire chain of events is replete with the sacraments of confession, contrition, penance, absolution, acts of mercy, and the like.

See. That's not what I'm sure about. Is acknowledging and/or confessing a sin and accepting the punishment for the sin, a path to salvation? If you continue the path of the sin and willfully sin, I don't think that leads to salvation. Let's say you're a murderer, knows you can be jailed for murder, let's say you commit murder, go to jail, get out, then commit murder again knowing full well what the consequences will be. Hebrews 10 deals with this type of situation and shows that it does not lead to salvation. So merely an acknowledgement and confession on its own isn't a path to me. In this case, it possibly may be. But, in the grand scheme of things, can actually be a sin unto itself.

And, in this event, asking Jesus to remember him when he is in his kingdom, is merely to me acknowledging Jesus as our lord and savior. Nothing about asking forgiveness. Or even remorse for the crime/sin. And for all we know, this "criminal" may have committed a crime that's not a sin.

There is a whole lot of variables in this situation. But the one thing he did was believe and defend jesus as lord and savior.

First off, the answer is "no"; Simply acknowledging Christ as your savior is not sufficient to attain salvation. One must repent and constantly strive to maintain a good life. It is a journey, not an event.

It was clear to early Christians, to include the commentaries of ancient Christianity on this passage, that this thief was manifesting his sin (confession) before the High Priest, showing sorrow (contrition) and suffering satisfaction (penance), as well as being forgiven by the High Priest (absolution).

Moreover, St. Dismas's account is also complete with a meritorious deed worthy of his repentance (works of mercy: admonishing the sinner, instructing the ignorant). It can also be said that by him taking up the cross, literally in this case, he was baptized by blood (Mark 10:35-38). This is indeed an example of the means of salvation, albeit a very Catholic example.

I think it is safe to say that the Good Thief was a special case and not presented to us a norm for salvation. First of all, we know nothing about him-- for all we know, he may have been a Christian follower of Jesus and even baptized before this point (how else would he know enough about Jesus and his “kingdom” to even place his faith in him?).Obviously it is evident that one must display at least faith. But even St. Dismas had time to enact a spiritual work of mercy–admonishing sinners.

Definitely great points. But, what commentaries would we look at? I'm definitely not coming from a Catholic example, but here is what Calvin says in his commentary.

"Now the first proof which he gave of his repentance was, that he severely reproved and restrained the wicked forwardness of his companion. He then added a second, by humbling himself in open acknowledgment of his crimes, and ascribing to Christ the praise due to his righteousness. Thirdly, he displayed astonishing faith by committing himself and his salvation to the protection of Christ, while he saw him hanging on the cross and near death."

So Calvin there is saying that his repentance was merely the acknowledgement of his crimes, and defense of Christ.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea says very little of this. What it does say

"The blessed thief thus taught those that stood by, uttering the words by which he rebuked the other. But when he saw that the ears of those who stood by were stopped up, he turns to Him who knows the hearts; for it follows, And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. You behold the Crucified, and you acknowledge Him to be your Lord. You see the form of a condemned criminal, and you proclaim the dignity of a king. Stained with a thousand crimes, you ask the Fountain of righteousness to remember your wickedness, saying, But I discover your hidden kingdom; and you turn away my public iniquities, and accept the faith of a secret intention. Wickedness usurped the disciple of truth, truth did not change the disciple of wickedness."

Both those commentaries from different sides of the Christian coin basically point to acknowledgement of sin and Christ is what happened. That acknowledging sin is good enough for repentance. And, that defending Christ in those circumstances is enough for salvation.

In that particular situation, yes, defending Christ, acknowledging sin, and repenting was sufficient for St. Dismas's salvation. However, St. Aquinas did not believe it was a one-shot deal but rather a special case. Remember, he was vehemently opposed to notions of sola fide.

I did no such thing.

It's the biggest problem WITH sola scriptura in a practical manner, historically untenable, doctrinally retarded, and impossibly broken if it were the case.

Yes you did.

Care to show me from your text how you didn't?

This post and the entire exchange are so ironic:

On the topic of personal interpretation and sola scriptura you read a statement posted by someone.

2) You interpret the statement to mean one thing.
3) I respond that I think the author actually meant the opposite, but we should wait to see what the author says as a final authority.
4) The author comes back, says he was NOT saying what you said he meant by the statement.
5) You are now saying, "Yes, you did mean that".


The failings of SS couldn't have been better illustrated than this.

One wants their message/interpretation to be correct so badly that they will read into any passage what they want, even to the point where they reject the statement's author when he asserts the correct meaning.

EVERYONE does this.

Sure, to a degree. However, while there is no built in mechanism to render a final decision in SS, Catholics have the Magisterium and the Papacy to alleviate this problem.

Only in Catholic, EO, Oriental, and some Protestant churches is there a mechanism to provide a final authority on interpretation and an end to infinite regression on interpretation and its legitimacy.

What I wrote:
bold: Hence the core issue with sola scriptura.
italic: Yes, but there has to be true openness. Expectations are preconceived resentments, as the saying goes.

What I meant:
bold: Hence the core issue with sola scriptura.
italic: Yes, but there has to be true openness. Expectations are preconceived resentments, as the saying goes.

Translation for you since you apparently don't understand what I wrote:
Sola scriptura results in: "Many people read the same passages and walk away with very different meanings, sometimes even different translations which give way to different meaning"

I don't know how much more clear I can make it that I disagree with SS as a tenet of faith because of the reasons I gave already.

But what of us who, in a spirit of humility and prayer were open to guidance by the Holy Spirit and started to see things in Scripture they had never seen before, even in passages they thought they knew, and it resulted in becoming Catholic?

FWIW, I went from a Jack Chick-esque view of Catholicism to going to the Latin Mass only in like... a year and half of study.

I certainly did not want that at the time. At all. I lost most friends (amazing how scabs fall away once the wound heals, eh?). My mother is still bitter to some degree. I no longer had the warm and fuzzy "assurance" of salvation. etc.

It doesn't alleviate the problem it just means that some have themselves read the scriptures and interpreted them as saying the church is the final authority. The same as people who have read the same scriptures and arrived at a different conclusion.

I think it is fair to say that the RCC wants and even needs this to be true badly, so I have no doubt that they have “found” scripture that says they are the final authority. Which is in and of itself what we are referring to as the “problem”.

My only point is that everyone does this, even the RCC. If we are to say that interpreting scriptures based on what we want be true is a problem, it is problematic for everyone. No one is always right about what they think G-d thinks or about what all the Bible verses say or mean.

The best we can all do is, in my opinion, keep praying to G-d and ask Him to help us and keep studying His word and follow His will as best as we can and as best as we understand it. He knows if we’re truly and sincerely doing that or not.

If doing that leads someone to the RCC than great, if not, that can be great too.

Nope. This is where Sacred Tradition comes in. How does the RCC know it has final authority? Well, from two sources; Scripture and the Apostles who walked with Jesus, along with their disciples, the Early Church Fathers etc. This is called Apostolic Succession. They know which books were sacred and how to interpret them because they were, or come directly, from those who heard Christ firsthand.

It's not a "problem" for the RCC in the least. If you still think it is, then your sect of Judaism too has a problem because they rely on Rabbinical lineage to assume authority.

Sacred Scripture witnesses to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition witnesses to Sacred Tradition, and they both witness Christ.

So you expect me to understand what the text itself says and you're presuming that the text you posted is NOT the source of our disagreement?

Having one's cake and eating it too.

I was doing to you what you won't accept with your own text but you DO accept with the text of the bible.

You think your text is enough by itself to show what you meant and expect reasonable people to be perfectly capable of understanding what you posted. There's no reason for you to not apply that to the biblical text.

Except he isn't claiming to possess the infallible Word of God, something that is the source of Man's salvation, and he isn't looking to create doctrines out of it.

This rings more true than ever:

1) On the topic of personal interpretation and sola scriptura you read a statement posted by someone.
2) You interpret the statement to mean one thing.
3) I respond that I think the author actually meant the opposite, but we should wait to see what the author says as a final authority.
4) The author comes back, says he was NOT saying what you said he meant by the statement.
5) You are now saying, "Yes, you did mean that".


The failings of SS couldn't have been better illustrated than this.

One wants their message/interpretation to be correct so badly that they will read into any passage what they want, even to the point where they reject the statement's author when he asserts the correct meaning.

QFT

For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Mark 8:38 ESV

Follow Jesus, or be separated from God eternally.

You’re proving my point VG. (You’re doing it now in re to why you see the RCC as the final authority.) We all do it. Jews, Christians, you, me, and even the RCC. It’s not a problem, it’s normal human behavior.

Pointing out that someone else interprets the Bible based on what they want and need it to say without acknowledging that you do that too and so does the RCC IS problematic because it’s simply not true.

As I said, it’s normal human behavior. We know the RCC is made up of normal humans, so naturally they will do this as well.

We all do it. It’s not malicious (in most cases) and it’s not even on purpose. I would not be surprised if you don’t even realize that you do it.

I’m sure you believe everything the RCC has taught you about their Bible and its interpretations. Why wouldn’t you? You trust them and you believe that G-d reveals himself to the RCC in a very special way. It only makes sense that you would read your Bible and find things to support that which you already believe. That’s ok!

But you are no different than me or Flashman or anyone else. You see and believe what you want to be true based on your perception of what the truth is. So do I. So does the RCC. So does everyone, everywhere.

I think that is wonderful @cavsct1983 Why would it be anything but fantastic?! You prayed to G-d and asked Him for help and it sounds like He helped you out tremendously.

Does that mean He will reach out to everyone else and help them in the exact same way? I don’t believe so based on my own experience with reaching out to Him. I believe He gives people what they need when they need it. Our experiences might not be similar but it doesn’t negate one or the other.

On a separate note, I’m sorry to hear your mother was not as supportive as you would have liked. I’m sure she loves you and believes she is only doing what is best for you but still, I’m sure her response was hurtful to you.

Perhaps if you continue to let her see how much happier you have become she will realize that you are an even better person for having gone through your spiritual journey and her bitterness will turn to joy.

Continue to pray for her and your relationship with her and I have no doubt that G-d will come through for you once again.

There is a difference;

Originally, you were asking about a logical determination on how one constitutes the actual meaning of Scripture. That can, and does, have a logical and finite determination because ultimately one can arrive at the source, the person/s who wrote the Scripture or were present when the subject matter in the Scriptures occurred. This is very much an approachable and finite proof.

What you are doing now is you are conflating the correct meaning of scripture  with the "Truth", capital "T". How do I know Christ is the Truth, Judaism, Calvinism, RCC, etc? That's a different matter, and that relies on critical thought, reason, and logic, but it ultimately relies on Faith to a great extent. If you are hoping to prove Faith, you will be sorely disappointed.

Given that I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, the opposite is true. Almost like one needs an authority to determine, finally, what the text is saying vs what it doesn't say/mean. In this case, I am that authority since I wrote it; you seemed to misunderstand that I agree with Sola Scriptura and thus I clarified by not only reiterating what I wrote, but rephrasing in such a way that it is inarguable that I disagree with it. I disagree with Sola Scriptura. That is a plain statement.

You're either genuinely confused or disingenuous, but you're proving my point while apparently not intending to: Sola Scriptura is a dead end and not viable, and needs an authority of interpretation where there is confusion.

The authority you referred to define what you meant was the text you posted.

You did exactly what you're condemning here.

I didn't misunderstand what you initially meant. I did what I have done in the past few posts intentionally, and you reacted exactly as I expected you would. You turned to the text.

That there is confusion over a text (where that confusion is genuine) does not mean that text is the cause of the confusion, or that it (the text - what God said) cannot show how the confusion is wrong.

You are just doubling down on your error. It's not saving any face, but quite the opposite really. There was no profound, hidden objective on your part in order to prove a point about SS. There was no semantic wordplay or intellectual "trap" you planned in advance in order to demonstrate cavsct's circular reasoning. Nope. You assumed a meaning, were wrong in your assumption, proved the point of the failings of SS, and now you are attempting to tell us it did not happen.

What purpose does that serve?

valley gunner, why should I think you want any honest interaction when you keep acting like all you want to do is bludgeon people who don't agree with you?

Is there any point to interacting with you other than conflict for the sake of enjoying conflict?

You are free to think what you like, but it has been my observation that the few people who seem to "object" to my comments and refer to them as "bludgeoning" etc. are those who are not use to, dislike, or are flabbergasted that anyone would not agree with them and challenges their contentions. Everyone else is fine and conversations carry on without issue. This is when we see the deflections, red herrings, strawmen, etc.

I have no issue discussing anything you would like to, and I think we can do so in a productive manner.

However, many people here, and rightfully so, have checked my attitude, corrected me, proved me wrong, etc. and I have learned endlessly from it. I have learned so much from those who disagreed with me. I am thankful for it, and unless you are willing to experience the same, you will never be "happy" in how these conversations unfold.  

Just my two cents.