The Splendor of the Church: EXCHANGE WITH AN ANTI-CATHOLIC APOLOGIST ON THE BIBLE AND PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, Part 4

The Holy Spirit dispelling the Darkness of Private Interpretation on Scriptures

*******

Gerry Soliman said...

[Is it really limited to two? Is there a possibility of other routes? And despite the number of routes, whether two or more, is it possible for a human person to attain certitude of faith and discover the true Church?]

If you have another HONEST way of joining a particular church then please state it here.

[How about accepting the claim of the Church with questions and analysis and be convinced of it? How about asking questions and giving analysis with the intention of building his own church rather than search for the one established by Jesus?]

That’s Route B.

[How about asking questions and giving analysis yet they do not count at all because the vote of the majority is the determining factor?]

Do you count this as an honest decision to join a church?

[How about being convinced of the truth of that church because it has been drilled in his mind since childhood? He studied and analyzed things sincerely and diligently but his mind is already affected by the biases he has acquired throughout the years?]

That’s Route A.

[How about being convinced otherwise but he prefers to stay because he will loose his job, it will cause problems in the family, etc.?]

Do you count this as an honest decision to join a church?

[What do you mean of ‘for himself’? Are you referring to the basic fact that the person who interprets the references intends to impose his own understanding of the data or he considers his ‘personal good’ as the goal of his study?]

For “himself” meaning he exercised independence to analyze the evidences presented to him. He may have prayed to God for guidance but he was not influenced by other humans on how to do things.

[O, really? Where is the Private Interpretation there? What you have presented above is not a private interpretation but Human Interpretation in general. Please differentiate for me the following:]

I’ll differentiate them to you in a form of dialogues:

[(1) Interpretation]

“What’s the meaning of this?”

[(2) Private Interpretation]

“This is how I understand it.”

[(3) Public Interpretation]

“This is how the people or government understands it.”

[(4) Authoritative Interpretation]

“This is how the authorities understand it.”

[(5) Ecclesial Interpretation]

“This is how the church or church authority understands it.”

[What makes your [B] ‘private’ interpretation?]

It is an understanding derived from the independent analysis of the individual.

[Since we are dealing with opinions on matters of Truth and Faith then we fall into no. 2 unless you want to go somewhere else.

The English word private refers to an opinion that is RESTRICTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Thus, it is obviously apparent in your repeated use of INDIVIDUAL and your stress of ‘FOR HIMSELF’. If we will apply Private Interpretation on the Biblical Texts it means that our interpretations shall be limited to the individual understanding of the texts and will result to the rejection of the Church.]

It is restricted in a sense that the person exercised independence. It does not necessarily follow that the person will reject the church.

[Technical? What do you mean? Do you want to tell us that it deals with mechanical and scientific matters? Or dealing with practical or scientific subjects? Or governed by strict rules to be followed?]

Yes. It’s part of the communication process. I’m sure you learned in school how a person processes the information in his mind in order to understand what is being communicated to him.

[Neutral? NEUTRAL? Are you sure? Neutral means it will not be favouring any position. It is indifferent. Meaning, in that individual’s search for truth he will not make any decision what is right and what is wrong. All are OK. All are fine. Everything is as good as the other. Ha, ha, ha... Is that right?

Not so. Take for example, driving. It is neutral. It is HOW you drive that is subject for judgment. Talking is also neutral, but it is what you say that that is subject for judgment. So, private interpretation is neutral. It is what is being interpreted is subject for judgment.

[So, there is a right or wrong. So then it is not Neutral. It discerns things, analyzes things and then there is a conclusion, decision or judgment. And in that conclusion, decision or judgment one is wrong and other is right. In Private Interpretation who makes that final judgment of which is erroneous and which is correct? Is it each and every individual or the established authority?]

What is right or wrong is not the private interpretation itself but the result of that interpretation.

[I already told you that human persons can interpret and therefore this reminder is not necessary. I do not deny human capacity to interpret or the fact that it is part of human communication. That insistence is non necessary. The fact that each human person can give their private interpretation on various subjects is also not in contention. The ability of man to give interpretation and even private interpretation is out of the question at bar. Rather, whether a Christian believer must employ Private Interpretation as his ultimate means of understanding the Sacred Scriptures to attain the True and Correct Faith. The Apostle Peter reminds us that no prophecy of Scriptures is of private interpretation.]

Let me challenge that thinking. Can you arrive at the conclusion that the Church of Rome is the infallible church established by Christ and is the legitimate authority without using private interpretation of references? If so, please demonstrate.

[It is not my statement. That is the statement of St. Peter the Apostle in his Epistle as presented in a non Catholic Bible KING JAMES VERSION. Why do you question the scholarship of KJV?]

Sorry, but your opinion of the verse from the KJV does not represent the scholarship of the KJV.

[Thus, Private Interpretation is Personal Interpretation only. The Official Interpretation also involves the Person but it added the presence of the Authority. ONCE THE INTERPRETATION IS MADE WITH FINALITY BY THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY THEN IT CEASES TO BE A PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Thus, your claim above to equate every interpretation as Private Interpretation is misleading and does not hold water.]

We’ll see about that. Similar to what I have asked, how do you identify the legitimate authority? Please demonstrate that to me without engaging in Private Interpretation.

[Gerry, it doesn’t mean that when you limited yourself to only 2 routes then you can limit me to your two routes. The issue of Interpretation, Private Interpretation and Authoritative Interpretation is not limited to two routes. Please get real and widen your understanding of the matter. You are becoming simplistic in your approach on the topic.]

Not really, the two routes are the honest routes that a person can take in joining a church. Can you tell me how did you become a Roman Catholic? Was it by the majority vote of your peers or family? Were you paid, coerced, or blackmailed in to joining? There are no honest routes other than the two. You may employ some cases that appear to be different but ultimately, it will end up with either of the two. If you know some other honest routes, then please tell me.

[That is your problem because you interpret all personal interpretation as private interpretation so in effect each person will become the ultimate ground of truth. Thus, there will be chaos because in variety of judgments and conclusions each will claim to be correct. That problematic situation is the effect of the method that you have chosen for yourself.

Much more, the fact that there are many claimants to the truth all the more proves my assertion that each human person can interpret. Since every one can interpret it is but practical that there is variety of interpretations and claims and conclusions. And since you consider interpretation as the same with private interpretation then it will be impossible for you to solve the impasse and determine the truth among the sea of private interpretations. The absence or denial or refusal of an Authoritative Interpretation will make the variety of interpretations impossible to be judged upon.]

You gave that statement under the assumption that you have identified the infallible interpreter. Granting that there is an infallible church to resolve the numerous conflicts of private interpretations, how can you be sure that it is the Church of Rome who is the infallible interpreter? You may say by history, well you would still have do some interpretations there.

The point of this is that you would still use private interpretation in order to arrive at a personal judgment that the Church of Rome is the true infallible interpreter, not the INC, nor the ADD etc.; unless of course, you took Route A.

[So, once again Gerry I’m asking you: How will you determine with finality the truth of faith? Have you found the true faith or the true Church? How and which one?]

I’ll answer this in the way end. Please keep on reading for now.

[ADDING SOMETHING IN MY STATEMENT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT? I DIDN’T DO IT TO YOU WHICH MEAN IT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. NOW YOU ARE JUSTIFYING IT BY POINTING THE FINGER ON ME RATHER THAN ON YOURSELF.

YOU DID THAT AND THEREFORE THAT IS ‘YOUR’ PREFERENCE. IT IS GERRY SOLIMAN’S PREFERENCE, NOT MINE. I AM NOT USING YOUR MOUTH TO EXPRESS MY PREFERENCE. MY PREFERENCE ARE EXPRESSED IN MY OWN STATEMENTS, NOT SOMEBODY ELSE.

YOU DID NOT ADJUST YOURSELF TO MY PREFERENCE. YOU ADJUSTED MY STATEMENT TO SUIT YOUR PREFERENCE... BY ADDITION AND INSERTION.

Our discussion was proceeding and was going well. Then you added and inserted important words in my statements which completely changed my position and affected the faith I am upholding. IT IS NOT SIMPLY ADDING, ITS DISTORTING.]

What do you suppose I will benefit by adding those two words? What would be the problem to your entire position by adding those two words? Did it change the thought that you still reject private interpretation? So what’s the impact against your statement?

[No. Once the interpretation is an Official Interpretation that ceases to be a private interpretation, rather it is Authoritative Interpretation or Position. Once a person is grounded on the official stand of the legitimate authority then his interpretation is authoritative not private. That is the rule of jurisprudence, of sciences and of search for truth and of faith.]

Granting without conceding that there is a legitimate authority of the faith, I am asking you how does a person identify that infallible authority? You got the ADD, you got the INC, etc. Before you can get any interpretation right, you have to burden a person first to identify the infallible church. And if you are saying that there are evidences to do so, wouldn’t that person exercise private interpretation on the available data to determine the infallible church?

[But my point is that even though there are differences of opinions and ideas, despite the market of ideas TRUTH CAN STILL BE ATTAINED. Certitude of Knowledge and Faith can still be attained. It is possible and it is attainable and indeed it is being upheld.

Well, concerning our Catholic Solution to the problem that you have presented here it is:

1. FAITH

2. The Authority of the Church

3. The Human Person’s openness to the Grace of God and his willingness to be guided by the Church.]

You keep on saying there should be a legitimate authority or infallible interpreter. But Fr. Abe we are in 2010. There are thousands of churches claiming to be God’s church. Thousands are claiming to have the correct understanding of Scriptures, tradition, and history. So before a man can get a correct interpretation of Scripture he is burdened to look for the infallible church, if such one exists.

The truth has always been contained in the Scriptures. It need not be attained but learned. It is the authority because it is God’s word. I know that you have your own teaching on what the Scriptures are and how it came to be. For me, the authority of the Scriptures wasn’t given by the church and neither the church declared its inspiration.

[Then, despite the fact that the grace of God enables man to find the truth and the Church Authority established by Jesus can guide properly if the human person will not be cooperative to the grace of God and to the authority of the Church then he will not attain the true faith.]

Then it is not Private Interpretation that is the cause why there are divisions and wrong decisions. It is the attitude of a person that destroys everything. A person can have a private interpretation that is in accordance with church interpretation. But if the person is stubborn and insist in his wrong interpretation, then don’t blame Private Interpretation, blame his attitude.

[You might say: BUT OTHERS CAN DENY THAT. THE INC OR ADD CAN QUOTE REFERENCES THAT SPEAKS OTHERWISE... Well, that’s true. Every people can always present an opposite opinion. But it doesn’t deny the fact that TRUTH can be attained by GRACE + CHURCH AUTHORITY + HUMAN REASON. Jesus was debated by Satan, opposed by the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Apostles experienced rejections but TRUTH PREVAILED as ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM. And the truth of faith is not negated by the presence of opposition but rather all the more makes it known. Truth shines in the darkness. And this truth is not attained through application of PRIVATE REVELATION ON SACRED SCRIPTURES.]

Like I said, you put another burden in man to look for the infallible church. The truth has always been in the Scriptures.

Now it is time for me to answer your question:

[On your part, you have failed to answer categorically if Certitude of Knowledge is possible despite those differences and you have not answered my continues query whether Private Interpretation is the solution to that dilemma that you are presenting.

You keep on presenting the differences in opinions among religious groups yet you do not present a solution. If you present a problem then you are necessitated to present your solution. Will your dear Private Interpretation be that solution?

It appears to me that you are advocating Private Interpretation for our search for Truth of Faith and the true Church. And it also appears to me that you want to present as if Private Interpretation should be followed by each person in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. Am I right on these?

On my part, we believe that the application of Private Interpretation on the Sacred Scriptures is one of the main sources of the confusing ideas that you have enumerated above. How can the source of the problems be the solution?]

We both agree that the grace of God is a factor. We both agree Scriptures tell the truth, and in the Bible faith comes from hearing the word of God. The Bible tells the church should preach the gospel. But after hearing the gospel, doesn’t a person make a decision whether to believe it or not? How does one make a decision? Would he not require credible data? What will he do with these data if you tell him that private interpretation is a no-no? “Oh don’t process in your mind what we said, don’t analyze, don’t come up with an understanding, just accept it without asking questions.” Is this what you mean to avoid Private Interpretation?

Tell me honestly Fr. Abe, did someone decide for you to join the Church of Rome? Oh, you may have been born a Roman Catholic; so let me ask if someone decided for you to stay in your church? It is your personal decision Fr. Abe to be with your church. And to arrive at that personal decision, you have processed the teachings of your church in your own mind and arrive at the interpretation that your church is the true church. An interpretation not made for you by your church but by yourself. The very same interpretation that you tell other people to avoid. Unless you will tell me that you took Route A, ha ha ha.

You cannot deny that when God himself spoke to people, the people had to process in their mind what has been said to them. Some decided to accept Him, some decided to reject Him. What’s the common denominator of their personal decision? Private Interpretation of what has been said. And we’re not even discussing sola scriptura.

Even if you say that there are people who consulted the apostles about the Scripture they still have to process in their own mind whatever that consultant advised. The Bereans of Acts 17:11 had to read the Scriptures to verify if Paul is telling the truth.

I may agree with some of the methods or processes that you know to arrive at the truth. But no matter what method or process you give, Fr. Abe, you cannot bypass private interpretation because the individual has to make a personal decision from there.

Yes, private interpretation can go wrong at times but that depends on the capacity and attitude of the individual. But for you to say to avoid private interpretation is to deprive the individual the right to decide. God can use any means for man to hear the truth. But man has to make the decision to accept or reject God. How does he arrive at a personal or private decision? Private Interpretation. Unless you’re telling me that everyone should take Route A.

You might be saying at this point something like “Oh so you admit that private interpretation can go wrong. That’s why we need an infallible authoritative church.” As I have been telling, this burdens the person to look for the infallible interpreter before he can get any correct interpretation. How will he manage to do that with certainty?

Now let’s deal with your interpretation of 2nd Peter 1:20-21.

[If that is your interpretation of the text then it supports more our position. If no prophecy of Scripture came from private interpretation then we cannot prophesy about the Scriptures coming from our private interpretation. If the prophecy of Sacred Scriptures is not made of private interpretation it is foolish to formulate doctrines based on a method that the Holy Spirit Himself avoided.]

I don’t know what your logic here is. But are you saying the since the prophecy of Scripture is not made of private interpretation we should also not make private interpretations when we read the Bible? I’m sorry but that logic is self defeating. Why? Because it is telling me to stop my mind from processing the words I read or hear. So how can I even understand it the way you do if my mind will not function to interpret? How can the communication process be completed? How do you expect me to understand it the way you do if I just read it and do not process it in my mind for interpretation?

Many times Christ asked “Did you not read?”, “How do you read it?” The pronouns used here is “you”, the individuals themselves whom Christ is talking to. He makes people process the words they read. Christ did not ask, “What’s the interpretation of the people who sat in Moses’ seat?” In fact he never asked it. This means he makes people think of the words in the Scripture.

January 19, 2010 8:58 PM

*******

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

RESPONSE TO GERRY SOLIMAN

[If you have another HONEST way of joining a particular church then please state it here.]

It is very interesting that you have the courage to capitalize the word HONEST despite the fact that you have been CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ADDING AND INSERTING IN MY STATEMENT. That is an act of DISHONESTY AND TREACHERY in a gentlemanly exchange of ideas among apologists of our kind.

After you have been caught doing so instead of taking responsibility and apologizing for your DISHONESTY you tried to insinuate yourself by invoking my use of Sola Scriptura and now you have added another alibi: “that you didn’t benefit from it.”

A person of your kind should be ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. You are pointing finger on the other side whose position you’ve tried to DISTORT.

Imagine, a seasoned apologist has to resort to ACT OF DISTORTION in a gentlemanly discussion, and then when CAUGHT IN THE ACT he resorts to FINGER POINTING and series of ALIBIS instead of being man enough to admit his apologetic BLUNDER.

UNTIL YOU TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR ACT OF DISTORTION AND DISHONESTY, AND REPAIR THE DAMAGE THEN YOU DON’T HAVE THE CREDIBILITY TO SPEAK OF HONESTY.

***How about accepting the claim of the Church with questions and analysis and be convinced of it?

How about asking questions and giving analysis with the intention of building his own church rather than search for the one established by Jesus?***

[That’s Route B.]

The First Question is Route B but the Second One is NOT. It is neither Route A nor B. Ha, ha, ha...

These are two separate questions yet you intentionally joined them to make the second one appear as B.

The Second Question involves AMBITION and PERSONAL BUSINESS affecting his decision and not CONVICTION.

***How about asking questions and giving analysis yet they do not count at all because the vote of the majority is the determining factor?***

[Do you count this as an honest decision to join a church?]

Ha, ha, ha... When you introduced your two routes you didn’t mention the adjective HONEST WITH the term DECISION. HOW COME YOU HAVE SUDDENLY ADDED IT NOW? Look here:

[As an introduction, a person who joins a certain church followed only one of two routes:

A - He accepted the claim of the church without asking questions and without analysis.

B - He read the appropriate references (Bible, tradition, history, etc.) and analyzed for himself, and from there arrived at a decision to join that particular church.]

You categorically and definitely DECLARED: “a person who joins a certain church followed only one of two routes”. After making your ONLY ONE OF TWO ROUTES ABSOLUTE now you are tempering them by using the word ‘Honest Decision’, eh. Why? Haven’t you taken into consideration DISHONESTY?

Honest or Dishonest that is one of the routes in joining the Church.

Here in Sorsogon there are two Baptist pastors who had a disagreement. So, they separated. The members voted whom to follow. A friend idolizes the other pastor because of his good preaching and intelligence, but he decided to follow the other because his father voted in favour of the one he likes less. Ha, ha, ha... A very beautiful exposition of your TWO ROUTES. Ha, ha, ha...

***How about being convinced of the truth of that church because it has been drilled in his mind since childhood? He studied and analyzed things sincerely and diligently but his mind is already affected by the biases he has acquired throughout the years?***

[That’s Route A.]

The First Question is A, the Second is Not. Because he studied and analyzed, meaning he asked questions contrary to A which states WITHOUT QUESTION. Ha, ha, ha... What is that A or B?

***How about being convinced otherwise but he prefers to stay because he will loose his job, it will cause problems in the family, etc.?***

[Do you count this as an honest decision to join a church?]

AGAIN YOU ARE HIDING IN THE SKIRT OF ‘HONEST’ EH. HE, HE, HE... HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE CAUGHT UNDER THE SKIRT OF YOUR 'ONLY ONE OF TWO ROUTES': “a person who joins a certain church followed ONLY one of two routes” . WHEN YOU PRESENTED YOUR TWO ROUTES THERE IS NO STATEMENT AT ALL SAYING THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO HONEST DECISIONS.

Besides, not all decisions to join or stay in a certain Church are due to honest decision. NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE HONEST. THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE FREQUENTLY CAUGHT IN DISHONESTY YET DROWNING IN ALIBIS.

I have personally interviewed some people who worked abroad in the Middle East and they decided to convert to the religion of the manager so that they can maintain the job and be given better treatment.

There are intelligent people who are knowledgeable in Scriptures but they are changing the faith for the sake of MARRIAGE – TO BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED TO THE BELOVED OR TO PRESERVE MARRIAGE – AND TO GAIN A JOB THAT IS GREATLY NEEDED. Ha, ha, ha... Where are they in your TWO ROUTES?

***What do you mean of ‘for himself’? Are you referring to the basic fact that the person who interprets the references intends to impose his own understanding of the data or he considers his ‘personal good’ as the goal of his study?***

[For “himself” meaning he exercised independence to analyze the evidences presented to him. He may have prayed to God for guidance but he was not influenced by other humans on how to do things.]

YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST HERE AGAIN. I’m asking you the meaning of your statement ‘for himself’. Instead, you moved the quote and simply presented – for ‘himself’. It changes the meaning. Your statement is: “and analyzed for himself”.

If you are saying that “he exercised independence to analyze the evidences presented to him.” You should have used “BY HIMSELF”. Instead, you stated “for himself”. “For” implies an action toward something and that thing is a person the ‘himself’. Thus, THE GOAL AND DIRECTION AND PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS IS THE PERSON AND NOT THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. Since you are claiming that “ROUTE B IMPLIES PRIVATE INTERPRETATION” THEN, PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS SELF-SERVING. IT IS NO WONDER THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED IT FOR THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS SELF-SERVING: “IT IS FOR HIMSELF” RATHER THAN “FOR TRUTH” OR “FOR FAITH” OR “FOR THE TRUE CHURCH” OR “FOR GOD”.

[He may have prayed to God for guidance but he was not influenced by other humans on how to do things.]

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT... YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST HERE GERRY. THIS IS WHAT YOU WROTE:

[B - He read the appropriate references (Bible, tradition, history, etc.) and analyzed for himself, and from there arrived at a decision to join that particular church.]

It is clear from this ROUTE B [which you claim to be Private Revelation] that the individual is affected by other persons because he read Bible, Tradition, History which all involved “other humans” then you are saying now that: “He may have prayed to God for guidance but he was not influenced by other humans on how to do things”. THAT IS CONTRADICTORY.

If you have read the Bible then you are influenced by Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. And if you have read Tradition then you are influenced by the Church Fathers who are humans. And if you have read History then you must have been influenced by the historians and scholars of various ages. IT DOES NOT FIT. Your reasoning is not consistent at all.

***O, really? Where is the Private Interpretation there? What you have presented above is not a private interpretation but Human Interpretation in general. Please differentiate for me the following:***

[I’ll differentiate them to you in a form of dialogues:]

Where are the DIALOGUES? You have given me MONOLOGUES!!! Ha, ha, ha... You are being DISHONEST again.

***[(1) Interpretation]***

[“What’s the meaning of this?”]

THAT IS NOT INTERPRETATION, THAT IS ASKING QUESTION. HA, HA, HA... THAT IS INQUIRY. HA, HA, HA...

THAT IS NOT INTERPRETATION. THAT IS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT A THING IS. HA, HA, HA...

[(2) Private Interpretation]

“This is how I understand it.”

[(3) Public Interpretation]

“This is how the people or government understands it.”

[(4) Authoritative Interpretation]

“This is how the authorities understand it.”

[(5) Ecclesial Interpretation]

“This is how the church or church authority understands it.”

[What makes your [B] ‘private’ interpretation?]

HA, HA, HA... THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DIFFERENTIATING NO. 2-5. IT MEANS THAT BY YOUR OWN MONOLOGUES YOU HAVE ATTESTED TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE TRULY DIFFERENT. They are distinct from one another and ONE CAN EXIST SEPARATELY FROM THE OTHER by doing so you have refuted your claim that one cannot do without Private Interpretation.

[It is an understanding derived from the independent analysis of the individual.]

Ha, ha, ha... It sounds simply Interpretation to me Gerry. It fits the personal interpretation but it does not satisfy the ADJECTIVE ‘PRIVATE’. My hand carry Merriam-Webster Dictionary differentiates ‘Private’:

1. Belonging to or Intended for a particular individual or group (~ property)

2. Restricted to the individual: PERSONAL (~ opinion)

3. Carried on by individual independently (~ study)

4. Not holding public office (~ citizen)

5. Withdrawn from company or observation (~ place)

6. Not known publicly (~ dealings)

Since we are dealing with opinions on matters of Truth and Faith then we fall into no. 2 unless you want to go somewhere else.

YOUR MEANING OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS NOT SUPPORTED EVEN BY DICTIONARY. I DON’T KNOW WHERE DID YOU GET THAT? YOU HAVE MADE AN AUTHORITY OUT OF YOUR ONLY TWO ROUTES WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY HAVING LOOPHOLES AND YOUR ‘OWN’ INVENTED MEANING OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT EVEN THE DICTIONARY DOESN’T PROVIDE FOR CONSIDERATION.

***[Since we are dealing with opinions on matters of Truth and Faith then we fall into no. 2 unless you want to go somewhere else.

[It is restricted in a sense that the person exercised independence. It does not necessarily follow that the person will reject the church.]

HA, HA, HA... CONTRADICTIONS GERRY... YOU ARE FALLING INTO CONTRADICTIONS.

You have stated that Route B which is Private Interpretation for you implies the individual reading the Bible, Tradition and History. THAT IS NOT INDEPENDENCE. THAT IS DEPENDENCE!!! Ha, ha, ha...

Then, Private interpretation is “Restricted to the individual” based on Merriam-Webster. It necessarily rejects the Church. It rejects Tradition and History. The focus is what’s good “for himself”.

Private Interpretation is indeed an exercise of Independence... INDEPENDENCE FROM WHAT? From Church, Tradition and History because the interpretation is restricted or limited to the personal opinion of the individual. It is making the Individual the Supreme Authority on the prophecy of Scriptures. But the Supreme Interpreter of the Scriptures is THE HOLY SPIRIT who rejected Private Interpretation when He moved and inspired the Biblical Writers to set the Divine Revelation into writings.

***[Technical? What do you mean? Do you want to tell us that it deals with mechanical and scientific matters? Or dealing with practical or scientific subjects? Or governed by strict rules to be followed?]***

[Yes. It’s part of the communication process. I’m sure you learned in school how a person processes the information in his mind in order to understand what is being communicated to him.]

Interpretation in general is part of the Communication Process. Then there are varieties of Interpretation and Private Interpretation is one of them. There are instances in the communication process wherein PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS NOT NEEDED AND IS REJECTED, as in the COMMUNICATION PROCESS OF WRITING THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES. Human beings like Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, David, Solomon, Moses, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. DIDN’T USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION because of that the prophecy of Scriptures and the Truth of Faith are NOT MADE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

***[Neutral? NEUTRAL? Are you sure? Neutral means it will not be favouring any position. It is indifferent. Meaning, in that individual’s search for truth he will not make any decision what is right and what is wrong. All are OK. All are fine. Everything is as good as the other. Ha, ha, ha... Is that right?***

[Not so. Take for example, driving. It is neutral. It is HOW you drive that is subject for judgment. Talking is also neutral, but it is what you say that that is subject for judgment. So, private interpretation is neutral. It is what is being interpreted is subject for judgment.]

IT IS INTERPRETATION THAT IS NEUTRAL. It is HOW you interpret that is subject for judgment. That “HOW YOU INTERPRET” that is REJECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT IS CALLED "PRIVATE INTERPRETATION".

*** [So, there is a right or wrong. So then it is not Neutral. It discerns things, analyzes things and then there is a conclusion, decision or judgment. And in that conclusion, decision or judgment one is wrong and other is right. In Private Interpretation who makes that final judgment of which is erroneous and which is correct? Is it each and every individual or the established authority?]***

[What is right or wrong is not the private interpretation itself but the result of that interpretation.]

WRONG. IF THE METHOD IS WRONG THEN THE RESULT IS WRONG. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A METHOD INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES THEREFORE IT IS BOUND TO LEAD TO WRONG RESULTS.

THE ONE WHO GIVES THE JUDGMENT CONCERNING WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG IS NOT THE INDIVIDUAL USING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY. Thus, Private Interpretation can only give an opinion of what is right and what is wrong but it is the authority that will determine with finality what is right and what is wrong.

***[I already told you that human persons can interpret and therefore this reminder is not necessary. I do not deny human capacity to interpret or the fact that it is part of human communication. That insistence is non necessary. The fact that each human person can give their private interpretation on various subjects is also not in contention. The ability of man to give interpretation and even private interpretation is out of the question at bar. Rather, whether a Christian believer must employ Private Interpretation as his ultimate means of understanding the Sacred Scriptures to attain the True and Correct Faith. The Apostle Peter reminds us that no prophecy of Scriptures is of private interpretation.]***

[Let me challenge that thinking. Can you arrive at the conclusion that the Church of Rome is the infallible church established by Christ and is the legitimate authority without using private interpretation of references? If so, please demonstrate.]

IF YOU WANT ME TO DEMONSTRATE IT DEBATE ME ON ‘THE TRUE CHURCH’ BUT FIRST, GIVE ME THE FULL AND EXACT IDENTITY OF YOUR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. ANSWER ME THESE QUESTIONS:

1. Have you found the True Church?

2. What is it?

3. Are you are member of that True Church?

4. What are the reasons why you believe that your church is the True One?

EVERY TIME YOU ARE SQUEEZED TO THE WALL YOU ARE RUNNING TO THAT DRAMATIZATION OF ASKING ME WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH. YOU HAVE TOLD ME TO FOCUS OUR TOPIC ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND YOU KEEP ON INSERTING THE ISSUE OF THE TRUE CHURCH OR OF PROVING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS THE TRUE ONE, OR TO PROVE TO YOU WHICH CHURCH IS THE INFALLIBLE ONE, ETC.

IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE ME ON ECCLESIOLOGY TELL ME SO. BUT REMOVE THE MASK OF YOUR CHURCH.

NO TREACHERY, GERRY. YOU ARE USING ANOTHER ACT OF TREACHERY. YOU ARE DROPPING THE NAME OF MY CHURCH AND OUR DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY AS AN SCAPEGOAT YET I DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT KIND OF ANIMAL IS YOUR CHURCH OR FELLOWSHIP. OR WHO IS THE DEVIL GOVERNING YOUR GROUP OR WHAT KIND OF RULES IMPLEMENTED IN YOURS.

YES, MY CHURCH IS CALLED CHURCH OF ROME. HOW ABOUT YOURS? WHERE IS IT IN CAVITE? I WANT TO SEE AND CHECK YOUR CHURCH AND ITS MEMBERS AND ITS LIFESTYLE AND ITS DOCTRINES.

I ALREADY TOLD YOU TO LAY YOUR CARDS ON THE TABLE BECAUSE MINE IS ON THE TABLE. YOU ARE NOT ONLY DISHONEST. YOU ARE TREACHEROUS IN YOUR STYLE. YOU ARE DEMANDING FROM ME SOMETHING THAT YOU YOURSELF REFUSES TO GIVE.

***[It is not my statement. That is the statement of St. Peter the Apostle in his Epistle as presented in a non Catholic Bible KING JAMES VERSION. Why do you question the scholarship of KJV?]***

[Sorry, but your opinion of the verse from the KJV does not represent the scholarship of the KJV.]

By what authority do you reject my claim? By your PRIVATE INTERPRETATION? Ha, ha, ha... Don’t make me laugh. Not only the KJV but another Protestant or shall we say Evangelical translated Bible favours our position on 2 Peter 1:20-21:

2 Peter 1:20-21 (Amplified Bible) 20[Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving). 21For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so--it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit.

HA, HA, HA... IT IS NOT A MATTER OF ANY PERSONAL OR PRIVATE OR SPECIAL INTERPRETATION! That is in verse 20. Your claim enters only in v. 21 “For no prophecy ever originated because of some man willed it....” HA, HA, HA... NOT A MATTER OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

***[Thus, Private Interpretation is Personal Interpretation only. The Official Interpretation also involves the Person but it added the presence of the Authority. ONCE THE INTERPRETATION IS MADE WITH FINALITY BY THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY THEN IT CEASES TO BE A PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Thus, your claim above to equate every interpretation as Private Interpretation is misleading and does not hold water.]***

[We’ll see about that. Similar to what I have asked, how do you identify the legitimate authority? Please demonstrate that to me without engaging in Private Interpretation.]

HA, HA, HA... YOUR FAVORITE SCAPEGOAT! WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR BACK ON THE WALL YOU SUDDENLY DIVERT TO IDENTIFICATION OF AUTHORITY. THAT IS ANOTHER TOPIC. OUR TOPIC HERE IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IN RELATION TO CHURCH AUTHORITY... WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 2 PETER 1:20-21. HE, HE, HE..

***[Gerry, it doesn’t mean that when you limited yourself to only 2 routes then you can limit me to your two routes. The issue of Interpretation, Private Interpretation and Authoritative Interpretation is not limited to two routes. Please get real and widen your understanding of the matter. You are becoming simplistic in your approach on the topic.]***

[Not really, the two routes are the honest routes that a person can take in joining a church.]

HA, HA, HA... BUT WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE TWO ROUTES PREVIOUSLY YOU DIDN’T MENTIONED OF ‘HONEST’ ROUTES. HA, HA, HA... YOU CLAIMED THAT THERE ARE ‘ONLY’... ‘ONLY’... ‘ONLY’ ONE OF TWO ROUTES. HA, HA, HA...

NOW, TO LESSEN THE IMPACT OF YOUR MISTAKE YOU HAVE DEVISED ‘HONEST’ ROUTES. HA, HA, HA...

[ Can you tell me how did you become a Roman Catholic? Was it by the majority vote of your peers or family? Were you paid, coerced, or blackmailed in to joining? There are no honest routes other than the two. You may employ some cases that appear to be different but ultimately, it will end up with either of the two. If you know some other honest routes, then please tell me.]

HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE NOW EMPLOYING DRAMATIZATIONS. BUT DRAMATIZATIONS WILL NOT HELP YOU ESCAPE GERRY. WHY DID YOU ADD THE WORD HONEST TO YOUR ROUTES WHICH PREVIOUSLY YOU STATED TO BE “ONLY-ONE-OF-TWO-ROUTES”. HA, HA, HA... NOW, YOU MAKE THEM “THEY ARE NO HONEST ROUTES”.

HA, HA, HA... EVEN IN HONEST ROUTES GERRY THEY ARE STILL MORE THAN TWO. HA, HA, HA... BECAUSE THE MEANS THAT GOD USES TO BRING HIS PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH IS MULTIPLE. WHO CAN FATHOM THE MIND OF THE LORD? WHO CAN SCRUTINIZE HIS WAYS? As St. Paul wrote not out of his Private Interpretation, he, he, he:

Romans 11:33 (English Standard Version) 33Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

TO CLAIM THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO HONEST ROUTES TO THE TRUTH OR TO THE TRUE FAITH IS TOO MUCH STRETCH OF AUTHORITARIAN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

***[That is your problem because you interpret all personal interpretation as private interpretation so in effect each person will become the ultimate ground of truth. Thus, there will be chaos because in variety of judgments and conclusions each will claim to be correct. That problematic situation is the effect of the method that you have chosen for yourself.

[You gave that statement under the assumption that you have identified the infallible interpreter. Granting that there is an infallible church to resolve the numerous conflicts of private interpretations, how can you be sure that it is the Church of Rome who is the infallible interpreter? You may say by history, well you would still have do some interpretations there.]

I AM NOT USING THE WORD INFALLIBLE CHURCH. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THAT OUT ASKING ME EARLIER TO DEMONSTRATE THE ROMAN CHURCH AS INFALLIBLE CHURCH. YOU ARE THE ONE USING IT AS AN ESCAPE GOAT. DID I EVER MENTION IN THIS EXCHANGE THE INFALLIBLE CHURCH? I’M ARGUING FOR INTERPRETATION + CHURCH AUTHORITY.

THE IDENTITY OF THE TRUE CHURCH IS NOT IN CONTENTION HERE. THIS IS NOT AN EXCHANGE ABOUT WHICH ONE IS THE TRUE CHURCH. THIS IS NEITHER AN RCC-INC DEBATE NOR RCC-BAPTIST DEBATE. DON’T JUMP INTO THAT. HA, HA, HA...

[The point of this is that you would still use private interpretation in order to arrive at a personal judgment that the Church of Rome is the true infallible interpreter, not the INC, nor the ADD etc.; unless of course, you took Route A.]

HA, HA, HA... THAT IS YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE FACT IS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DIDN’T EMPLOY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE APOSTLES DIDN’T USE IT AS WELL IN THEIR PREACHING AND WRITING. THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH AS THE TRUE CHURCH IS NOT BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL’S PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT THE WORDS AND ACTIONS OF THE LORD JESUS WHO BUILT HIS CHURCH.

***[So, once again Gerry I’m asking you: How will you determine with finality the truth of faith? Have you found the true faith or the true Church? How and which one?]***

[I’ll answer this in the way end. Please keep on reading for now.]

HOW THRILLING!

***[ADDING SOMETHING IN MY STATEMENT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT? I DIDN’T DO IT TO YOU WHICH MEAN IT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. NOW YOU ARE JUSTIFYING IT BY POINTING THE FINGER ON ME RATHER THAN ON YOURSELF.

YOU DID NOT ADJUST YOURSELF TO MY PREFERENCE. YOU ADJUSTED MY STATEMENT TO SUIT YOUR PREFERENCE... BY ADDITION AND INSERTION.

[What do you suppose I will benefit by adding those two words?]

WHO KNOWS? I NOTICED YOUR ADDITION AND INSERTION. THUS, IT PREVENTED YOU TO USE YOUR ADDITION AND INSERTION ACCORDING TO YOUR PLAN AND INTENTION. BENEFICIAL OR NOT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS STILL FOUL. YOU CORRUPTED MY STATEMENT.

I DON’T WANT TO ACCUSE YOU BUT YOU DID THAT ACT. THAT IS TREACHEROUS. THAT IS VIOLATING MY WORDS. YOU SHOULD HAVE RESPECTED MY WORDS AS I AM TO YOURS. YOU ARE FOND OF ADDING WORDS. YOU DID IT TO ME, THEN NOW YOU DID IT TO YOUR TWO ROUTES WHICH SUDDENLY GOT THE INJECTION OF ‘HONEST’ .

[What would be the problem to your entire position by adding those two words?]

FIRST, YOU GAVE ME THE PROOF THAT YOU ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY IN YOUR ACTIONS BECAUSE YOU ARE CHANGING MY STATEMENTS AND THEREFORE I HAVE TO BE EXTRA CAREFUL NEXT TIME. THAT ACT IS FOUL. YOU CORRUPTED MY POSITION.

[ Did it change the thought that you still reject private interpretation? So what’s the impact against your statement?]

YES, IT DID CHANGE. YOU MADE IF APPEAR AS IF IM STATING THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT GIFTED TO GIVE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF TRADITION AND HISTORY. I didn’t write this: “…he is not gifted with to give the correct interpretation of the Bible and other appropriate sources such as history and tradition.”

FOR A ROMAN CATHOLIC THIS IS A DANGEROUS STATEMENT... To accept your addition to my statement is dangerous. It is almost like denying man’s ability to search and find the truth. It is like denying certitude of knowledge and of faith.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE OK FOR PROTESTANTS BUT UNACCEPTABLE TO CATHOLICS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU ARE DEFENDING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT WE ARE ONE WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE APOSTLES AND THE BIBLICAL WRITERS IN REJECTING ITS APPLICATION ON THE PROPHECIES OF THE SCRIPTURES.

MUCH MORE, THAT POSITION COULD BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO YOUR CAUSE.

***[No. Once the interpretation is an Official Interpretation that ceases to be a private interpretation, rather it is Authoritative Interpretation or Position. Once a person is grounded on the official stand of the legitimate authority then his interpretation is authoritative not private. That is the rule of jurisprudence, of sciences and of search for truth and of faith.]***

[Granting without conceding that there is a legitimate authority of the faith, I am asking you how does a person identify that infallible authority?]

IF YOU ARE NOT CONCEDING THAT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY THEN YOU ARE NOT GRANTING IT AT ALL.

IF YOU WANT TO ENTER INTO A DEBATE ON IDENTIFYING THAT INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY, YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS SUCH FIRST. BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT CONCEDE THAT THERE IS SUCH AN INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY IT IS USELESS FOR ME TO IDENTIFY IT TO YOU. WHAT FOR? WHY DO I HAVE TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING THAT YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE ITS EXISTENCE? HA, HA, HA...

IF YOU CONCEDE TO IT THEN LET US GIVE OUR OWN CHURCH IDENTITY AND ARGUE WHICH ONE IS TRUE. HE, HE, HE... IF YOU THINK THAT IT DOESN’T EXIST THEN I WILL PROVE ITS EXISTENCE AND YOU DENY THAT THERE IS SUCH. BUT THAT DOESN’T BELONG TO THIS EXCHANGE. HE, HE, HE... HOW CLEVER YOU ARE GERRY. NOT REALLY CLEVER BUT CUNNING.

[ You got the ADD, you got the INC, etc. Before you can get any interpretation right, you have to burden a person first to identify the infallible church. And if you are saying that there are evidences to do so, wouldn’t that person exercise private interpretation on the available data to determine the infallible church?]

YEAH, THEY ARE EFFECTS OF FULL APPLICATION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. HA, HA, HA...

***[But my point is that even though there are differences of opinions and ideas, despite the market of ideas TRUTH CAN STILL BE ATTAINED. Certitude of Knowledge and Faith can still be attained. It is possible and it is attainable and indeed it is being upheld.

Well, concerning our Catholic Solution to the problem that you have presented here it is:

1. FAITH

2. The Authority of the Church

3. The Human Person’s openness to the Grace of God and his willingness to be guided by the Church.] ***

[You keep on saying there should be a legitimate authority or infallible interpreter. But Fr. Abe we are in 2010. There are thousands of churches claiming to be God’s church. Thousands are claiming to have the correct understanding of Scriptures, tradition, and history. So before a man can get a correct interpretation of Scripture he is burdened to look for the infallible church, if such one exists.]

THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE TO ENLIGHTEN US WITH YOUR GREAT WISDOM FROM YOUR ANTI-BIBLICAL PRIVATE INTERPRETION. TELL US WHAT IS THE TRUTH? WHICH IS THE TRUE CHURCH? I WANT TO VISIT YOUR PLACE AND YOUR PASTOR IN CAVITE TO SEE THE TRUTH EXISTING, PERSONIFIED IN YOUR FELLOWSHIP AND CHURCH. SO WHAT IS IT? HE, HE, HE...

I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE BIBLICAL PASSAGE REJECTING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION YET YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME A PASSAGE SUPPORTING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THEN I HAVE GIVEN OUR CRITERIA OF ATTAINING THE TRUE CHURCH BUT YOU DO NOT GIVE YOUR OWN AND MUCH WORSE YOU ARE HIDING THE IDENTITY OF YOUR CHURCH. WHAT IS THAT FREEMASONRY, SATANISM, OR WHAT? DO YOU PRACTICE SPIRIT OF THE GLASS AND TAROT CARDS IN YOUR WORSHIPS THAT YOU ARE AFRAID OF THEM?

[The truth has always been contained in the Scriptures.]

AMEN. ALLELUIA. BUT THAT TRUTH IS NOT GIVEN TO US THROUGH PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. AND THE SCRIPTURES WERE NOT WRITTEN OUT OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

THE TRUTH IS NOT FOUND IN BIBLE ALONE. THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES ARE ALSO PRESENT IN THE CHURCH, THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH.

[ It need not be attained but learned.]

THAT TRUTH IS GIVEN AS A GRACE. EVEN IF YOU TRIED TO LEARN IT IF THERE IS NO GUIDANCE AND INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT THEN IT IS OF NO AVAIL.

[ It is the authority because it is God’s word.]

IT IS THE AUTHORITY BECAUSE IT IS GOD’S WORD, AND THE CHURCH IS ALSO THE AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED BY JESUS BECAUSE IT IS HIS BODY. IT IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH.

[I know that you have your own teaching on what the Scriptures are and how it came to be. For me, the authority of the Scriptures wasn’t given by the church and neither the church declared its inspiration.]

THIS IS UNBIBLICAL. THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES CAME FROM GOD BUT HANDED ON TO THE CHURCH. IT WAS THE CHURCH LEADERS WHO WROTE THEM, PREACHED THEM, TAUGHT THEM CORRECTLY AND HANDED THEM FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER.

THE CHURCH IS PRIOR TO THE BIBLE. THE LORD ESTABLISHED THE CHURCH FIRST BEFORETHE BIBLE.

***[Then, despite the fact that the grace of God enables man to find the truth and the Church Authority established by Jesus can guide properly if the human person will not be cooperative to the grace of God and to the authority of the Church then he will not attain the true faith.]***

[Then it is not Private Interpretation that is the cause why there are divisions and wrong decisions.]

NON COOPERATION IS NOT FOCUSED ON ATTITUDE BUT ON ACTION... REFUSAL TO COOPERATE TO THE GRACE OF GOD AND TO UNITE ONESELF TO THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A CONCRETE MANIFESTATION OF THAT NON-COOPERATION. IT IS BASICALLY PROCLAIMING ONESELF AS THE SUPREME INTERPRETER OF THE SCRIPTURES OVER THE HOLY SPIRIT AND REJECTING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.

THE ROOT OF DIVISIONS AND WRONG DECISIONS ON MATTERS OF FAITH IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT IS WHY THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED IT AS WELL AS THE BIBLICAL WRITERS. SINCE IT IS REJECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT THEN, IT IS ABOMINABLE.

[ It is the attitude of a person that destroys everything.]

ATTITUDE IS HARMLESS UNLESS PUT INTO ACTION. THE ATTITUDE OF SELF-CONCEIT IS MANIFESTED IN OUR CHRISTIAN LIFE IN ADVOCATING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION: ME AND THE BIBLE ALONE. SO EACH PERSON IS CORRECT. ME AND THE BIBLE ALONE, E.

[A person can have a private interpretation that is in accordance with church interpretation. But if the person is stubborn and insist in his wrong interpretation, then don’t blame Private Interpretation, blame his attitude.]

BEING STUBBORN AND INSISTING IN HIS WRONG INTERPRETATION IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. BUT IF THE PERSON PUTS HIS INTERPRETATION IN ACCORD WITH THE CHURCH INTERPRETATION THEN THAT IS NO LONGER PRIVATE... HE IS UPHOLDING THE CHURCH INTERPRETATION... THAT’S AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION.

***[You might say: BUT OTHERS CAN DENY THAT. THE INC OR ADD CAN QUOTE REFERENCES THAT SPEAKS OTHERWISE... Well, that’s true. Every people can always present an opposite opinion. But it doesn’t deny the fact that TRUTH can be attained by GRACE + CHURCH AUTHORITY + HUMAN REASON. Jesus was debated by Satan, opposed by the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Apostles experienced rejections but TRUTH PREVAILED as ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM. And the truth of faith is not negated by the presence of opposition but rather all the more makes it known. Truth shines in the darkness. And this truth is not attained through application of PRIVATE REVELATION ON SACRED SCRIPTURES.]***

[Like I said, you put another burden in man to look for the infallible church. The truth has always been in the Scriptures.]

THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE BIBLE AND IN THE CHURCH. ONE IS THE WORD OF GOD WHILE THE OTHER IS THE BODY OF CHRIST THE LORD. THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH. THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES IS ENTRUSTED TO THE CHURCH.

[Now it is time for me to answer your question:

***[On your part, you have failed to answer categorically if Certitude of Knowledge is possible despite those differences and you have not answered my continues query whether Private Interpretation is the solution to that dilemma that you are presenting.

[We both agree that the grace of God is a factor. We both agree Scriptures tell the truth, and in the Bible faith comes from hearing the word of God. The Bible tells the church should preach the gospel. But after hearing the gospel, doesn’t a person make a decision whether to believe it or not? How does one make a decision? Would he not require credible data? What will he do with these data if you tell him that private interpretation is a no-no?]

I WILL TELL HIM TO INTERPRET THE DATA USING HIS HUMAN INTERPRETATION BUT AVOID PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS THE SCRIPTURE SAYS. THEN AS HE READS AND ANALYSES AND STUDIES THESE DATA HE SHOULD PRAY FOR THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO LEAD HIM TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH AND TO STUDY THEM UNDER THE AUTHORITATIVE GUIDE OF THE CHURCH. THE ONE FOUNDED BY JESUS AND NOT BY PASTOR SO, SO... MANALO, OR SORIANO, OR VILLANUEVEA [PASTOR + POLITICIAN] WHO BY REVELATION OF GOD WAS A SURE WINNER DAW IN THE LAST ELECTION YET CAME OUT KULELET SA KANGKUNGAN, NOW RUNNING AGAIN UNDER PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT GOD WANTS HIM TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.

[ “Oh don’t process in your mind what we said, don’t analyze, don’t come up with an understanding, just accept it without asking questions.” Is this what you mean to avoid Private Interpretation?]

NOT ALL PROCESSING IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THAT IS PROVEN. YOU YOURSELVES HAVE DIFFERENTIATED THE VARIOUS INTEPRETATIONS BASED ON YOUR MONOLOGUES. HA, HA, HA... INTERPRETATION IS NOT EQUAL WITH PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION WAS REJECTED BUT HUMAN INTERPRETATION IN GENERAL IS NOT. THAT IS THE ONE WHICH IS PART OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION.

[Tell me honestly Fr. Abe, did someone decide for you to join the Church of Rome? Oh, you may have been born a Roman Catholic; so let me ask if someone decided for you to stay in your church? It is your personal decision Fr. Abe to be with your church. And to arrive at that personal decision, you have processed the teachings of your church in your own mind and arrive at the interpretation that your church is the true church. An interpretation not made for you by your church but by yourself. The very same interpretation that you tell other people to avoid. Unless you will tell me that you took Route A, ha ha ha.]

HA, HA, HA... I WILL TELL MY ANSWER ONCE YOU ARE READY TO TELL ME THE NAME OF YOUR CHURCH AND HOW YOU ENTER INTO IT. I’M ALSO EAGER TO SEE ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION IN THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY. HE, HE, HE...

PREVIOUSLY YOU WERE AFRAID TO SHOW US YOUR FACE. NOW YOU HAVE GIVEN US YOUR NAME WITH ADDED BONUS OF YOUR I.D. PICTURE. HA, HA, HA... GLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU’VE GOT THE COURAGE TO SHOW UP AGAIN AFTER DISAPPEARING FOR SOME TIME.

HOPEFULLY, NEXT TIME YOU WILL NOT BE ASHAMED OF YOUR CHURCH AND YOUR PASTOR AND YOUR CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. ONCE WE GOT TO KNOW THEM, THE FULL RESEARCH POWER AND MEANS OF THE CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS WILL BE UTILIZED TO CHECK THE AUTHENTICITY OF YOUR OWN CHURCH. THEN WE CAN LAY OUR CARDS ON THE TABLE: DOCTRINE TO DOCTRINE, CHURCH TO CHURCH... NO HOLDS BARRED. NO MASK, NO FEAR... EYE TO EYE.

[You cannot deny that when God himself spoke to people, the people had to process in their mind what has been said to them. Some decided to accept Him, some decided to reject Him. What’s the common denominator of their personal decision?]

REASON! REASON IS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR; NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. GOD’S GIFT OF REASON. BUT IT MUST NOT BE REASON ALONE. IT MUST BE REASON AND FAITH. IT MUST BE REASON INFORMED BY FAITH; AND FAITH SEEKING UNDERSTANDING BY REASONING OUT.

THE HOLY SPIRIT GAVE US REASON [INTELLECT, WILL, WISDOM, UNDERSTANDING, KNOWLEDGE] AND FAITH BUT NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURES. THE APOSTLES THEN HANDED ON TO US THE TRUTH OF FAITH FREE FROM THE VENOM OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

[Private Interpretation of what has been said. And we’re not even discussing sola scriptura.]

WRONG. WE ARE ONLY EMPLOYING REASON BUT NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION WHEN HE INSPIRED THE BIBLICAL WRITERS AND THE APOSTOLIC PREACHERS.

YOUR INSISTENCE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS ‘IMPERATIVE’ AND ‘NORMAL’ IS UNTENABLE EVEN IN BASIC DIFFERENTIATION OF VARIOUS KINDS OF INTERPRETATION WHETHER YOU FOLLOW THE DICTIONARY OR YOUR OWN HALLUCINATORY DIALOGUE WHICH IN ACTUALITY IS MONOLOGUE.

[Even if you say that there are people who consulted the apostles about the Scripture they still have to process in their own mind whatever that consultant advised.]

PROCESSING IN MIND IS REASONING BUT NOT ALL REASONING IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A LIMITED TERM AND IT IS THEREFORE FOOLISH TO CONSIDER ALL ACTS OF REASONING AND ALL ACTS OF HUMAN INTERPRETATION AS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THIS IS PROVEN BY THE BIBLE ITSELF. IT WAS UNFOLDED AND ENSCRIPTURATED IN THE COURSE OF CENTURIES FROM ADAM TO ST. JOHN THE LAST LIVING APOSTLE YET THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF ITS PROCLAMATION AND ENSCRIPTURATION THE HOLY SPIRIT MADE IT SURE THAT NOT A SINGLE OF ITS PROPHECIES IS OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THUS, PRIVATE INTERPRETATION CAN BE REJECTED. IT CAN BE SET ASIDE AND IS NON IMPORTANT FOR THE PROCLAMATION OF THE TRUTH OF FAITH.

ABRAHAM, MOSES, ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH, JOB AND EZEKIEL, PAUL AND PETER, JOHN AND JAMES USED REASON AND FAITH BUT NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

YOU CAN ONLY SUSTAIN YOUR ARGUMENTATION BY USING SOPHISTRY BUT THE BIBLE ITSELF IS THE PROOF THAT WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING IS ERRONEOUS AND BASED ON SELF-ILLUSION.

[The Bereans of Acts 17:11 had to read the Scriptures to verify if Paul is telling the truth.]

I LOVE THE TERM BEREANS. IT REMINDS ME OF SOMEONE WHO IS ONCE AN ACTIVE MEMBER THERE. HE, HE, HE... HE IS GREATLY MISSED BY BRO. EL CID. HA, HA, HA...

CAREFUL READING OF THE TEXT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. LET US SEE:

Act 17:11 "The people there were more open-minded than the people in Thessalonica. They listened to the message with great eagerness, and every day they studied the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was really true."

FIRST, THE REAL BEREANS [NOT THE FORUM OF EVANGELICAL APOLOGISTS WHO THEMSELVES ARE NOT UNITED IN THEIR TEACHINGS] IN ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ‘OPENED THEIR MIND’ TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH. THIS IS WHAT WE MEANT BY COOPERATING WITH THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPRIT - TO BE OPEN TO THE INSPIRATION OF THE SPIRIT. THIS IS IN CONTRAST WITH THE THESSALONIANS OF ACTS 17:1-7 WHO REJECTED PAUL AND HIS PREACHING.

SECOND, THE REAL BEREANS DIDN’T STUDY SCRIPTURES ON THEIR OWN. THEY LISTENED TO PAUL WHO WAS AN OFFICIAL TEACHER OF THE FAITH. SO IT IS:

OPENNESS + OFFICIAL INTERPRETER + SCRIPTURES

IT IS NOT SCRIPTURES ALONE AND DEFINITELY IT WAS NOT BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THEY RECEIVED AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION FROM A VERY HIGH RANKING OFFICIAL OF THE CHURCH. PAUL WAS ON OFFICIALLY DEPUTED PREACHER AND TEACHER OF THE CHURCH. THE BEREANS ACCEPTED PAUL’S AUTHORITY:

SCRIPTURES + AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION.

THERE IS NO IOTA OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THERE. THE ACT OF VERIFYING IS AN ACT OF REASONING, BUT IT WAS NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

[I may agree with some of the methods or processes that you know to arrive at the truth. But no matter what method or process you give, Fr. Abe, you cannot bypass private interpretation because the individual has to make a personal decision from there.]

HA, HA, HA... THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF BYPASSED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IN GIVING US THE TRUTH OF FAITH. THE BIBLICAL WRITERS FROM THE PATRIARCHS, PROPHETS AND PSALMISTS TO THE APOTLES AND E VANGELISTS GAVE US THE TRUTH OF FAITH WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION YET YOU ARE MAKING A SELF-DELUSIONAL APPEAL THAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE BYPASSED. HA, HA, HA... YOUR CLAIM HAS NO FOUNDATION IN REALITY. IT IS BASED ON YOUR DEFECTIVE DEFINITION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT EVEN IN THE BASIC DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY DICTIONARY DOES NOT EXIST.

YOU ARE ADVOCATING PRIVET INTERPRETATION YET YOU ARE IMPOSING WITH AUTHORITATIVE FORCE YOUR TWO ROUTES AND YOUR CONVICTION THAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS INDESPENSABLE WHILE THE SCRIPTURES ATTEST THAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION CAN BE JUNKED. ON MATTERS OF THE TRUTH OF FAITH, PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A PIECE OF THRASH.

[Yes, private interpretation can go wrong at times but that depends on the capacity and attitude of the individual.]

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS ALWAYS WRONG CONCERNING THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES. OF COURSE, WHEN WE SPEAK OF PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURES WE SPEAK OF DIVINE REVELATION. SCRIPTURES ARE NOT MADE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND THUS WE CANNOT RELY ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. EVEN THE HIGH CALIBRED THEOLOGIANS ROM BOTH CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT BACKGROUND SUPPORT THAT:

“Private” is explained, 2Pe_1:21, “by the will of man” (namely, the individual writer). In a secondary sense the text teaches also, as the word is the Holy Spirit’s, it CANNOT BE interpreted by its readers (any more than by its writers) by their mere private human powers, but by the teaching of the Holy Ghost (Joh_16:14). “He who is the author of Scripture is its supreme interpreter” [Gerhard]. Alford translates, “springs not out of human interpretation,” that is, is not a prognostication made by a man knowing what he means when he utters it, but,” etc. (Joh_11:49-52). Rightly: except that the verb is rather, doth become, or prove to be. It not being of private interpretation, you must “give heed” to it, looking for the Spirit’s illumination “in your hearts” [Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary for 2 Peter 1:20-21 ]

SO, THESE RENOWN BIBLE SCHOLARS FROM PROTESTANT CHURCHES AGREE TO OUR CATHOLIC POSITION THAT THE TEXT DOES NOT ONLY REFER TO THE ‘ORIGINATION’ OF SCRIPTURES BUT THE REJECTION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO READERS WHO INTERPRETS THE BIBLICAL TEXTS AND THE TRUTH CONTAINED THEREIN.

[But for you to say to avoid private interpretation is to deprive te individual the right to decide.]

DID I REALLY SAY THAT? WHERE? I DO NOT REMEMBER. PLEASE GIVE ME THE CORRECT QUOTATION WHEREIN I STATED THIS: “to avoid private interpretation is to deprive te individual the right to decide”. I have a complete copy of our exchange. And based on my re-reading I didn’t state that. If you can find it for me, fine. IF YOU CANNOT THEN YOU ARE MAKING ANOTHER DECEPTION AGAIN.

[God can use any means for man to hear the truth.]

YES. BUT THERE ARE MEANS THAT HE USED AND THERE ARE OTHERS THAT HE REJECTED. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS REJECTED BY GOD. IT IS NOT EXISTING IN THE TEXTS OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES AND IN THE TRUTH CONTAINED THEREIN.

[But man has to make the decision to accept or reject God.]

CORRECT. THAT IS WHY MAN HAS TO FOLLOW THE WAY OF THE LORD. IF THE WAY OF THE LORD IS ‘NO TO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION’ IT IS FOOLISH TO INSIST ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION:

Proverbs 3:5-6 (New International Version)

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean NOT on your OWN understanding;

6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

OURS IS A STAND FOLLOWS THE DECISION OF THE HOLY SPIRT WHO ASK US TO AVOID PRIVATE REVELATION.

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS EVIL BECAUSE IT LEANS ONLY ON ONE’S OWN UNDERSTANDING RATHER THAN THAT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND OF THE CHURCH. THAT IS WHY YOUR ONLY TWO ROUTES ARE NOT STRAIGHT. THEY ARE DISTORTED. YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY THEM WITH THE WORD ‘HONEST’ IN ORDER TO SAVE FACE SINCE I HAVE GIVEN CASES THAT CANNOT BE INSERTED TO ANY OF YOUR ROUTES. HA, HA, HA...

IF YOU ACCEPT GOD YOU WILL ACCEPT HIS WAY. IF YOU ACCEPT GOD YOU WILL REJECT WHAT HE REJECTED. A CHRISTIAN MUST FOLLOW THE WAY OF GOD, THE WILL OF GOD AND THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY GOD, NOT THE ONE REJECTED BY GOD:

1 Corinthians 4:16 (New International Version) “I urge you to imitate me.” AND

1 Corinthians 11:1 “Imitate me, then, just as I imitate Christ.”

WE HAVE TO IMITATE ST. PAUL. HE WROTE SEVERAL EPISTLES, NONE OF THEM, OUT OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND WHEN HE PROCLAIMED THOSE TRUTHS NONE OF THEM WERE MADE OUT OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THUS, IT IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DECISION TO FOLLOW ST. PAUL IN REJECTING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. BY IMITATING PAUL, WE ARE IMITATING CHRIST WHO REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF HIS WORD BY HIS SPIRIT.

[How does he arrive at a personal or private decision? Private Interpretation.]

HA, HA, HA... YOUR QUESTION IS ‘FOR HIMSELF’ SO THE ANSWER IS ‘FOR HIMSELF’... THAT QUESTION IS DESIGNED REALLY TO PRODUCE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS THE ANSWER. HA, HA, HA... BUT, IN READING THE SCRIPTURES AND IN TEACHING THEM WE ARE TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH OF FAITH, NOT PERSONAL OR PRIVATE DECISION. OUR GOAL IS THE TRUE FAITH, THE FAITH ENTRUSTED TO THE APOSTLES WHO PREACHED, WROTE AND HANDED ON THE SCRIPTURES.

IF THE QUESTION IS: HOW DOES ONE ARRIVE AT THE TRUE AND CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE?

THE ANSWER IS: NOT BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT BY REASON AND FAITH UNDER GOD’S GRACE AND THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE CHURCH.

[Unless you’re telling me that everyone should take Route A.]

YOUR ROUTE A and B HAVE NO VALUE AT ALL. IT IS A MERE PRODUCT OF YOUR OWN IMAGINATION. CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE TO SUPPORT THEM IF YOU WANT TO INSIST ON YOUR PRIVATE REVELATION AND YOUR ONLY TWO ROUTES.

IF YOU BANK ON HUMAN REASONING TO PROVE THEM OUT. IT IS ALREADY A FAILURE BECAUSE THERE ARE OTEHR MEANS OF JOINING THE CHURCH OTHER THAN YOUR 'ONLY ONE OF THE TWO' SOLIMANIC FORMULAE.

[You might be saying at this point something like “Oh so you admit that private interpretation can go wrong. That’s why we need an infallible authoritative church.”]

HA, HA, HA... I’M SIMPLY SAYING THAT THE MEANS REJECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR DIVINE REVELATION MUST BE REJECTED TOO. INSTEAD, YOU ARE SWALLOWING IT AND YOU WANT ME TO SWALLOW THAT POISON. NO, NO, NO... YOU CAN LINGER WITH YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IF YOU WANT BUT IT IS NON ACCEPTABLE FOR US CATHOLICS BECAUSE WE RATHER FOLLOW THE HOLY SPIRIT THAN THE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF GERRY SOLIMAN.

[ As I have been telling, this burdens the person to look for the infallible interpreter before he can get any correct interpretation.]

THE BIBLE WHICH IS FREE FROM THE POISON OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION CATEGORICALLY STATES THAT THERE IS A ‘GROUND AND PILLAR OF TRUTH’ WHICH IT ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE CHURCH. SO, THERE IS AN EXISTING INSTITUTION THAT CAN DETERMINE MATTERS CONCERNING THE TRUTH.

I WILL BELIEVE YOU GERRY IF THE BIBLE STATES: “THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH IS YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.” HA, HA, HA... THE LORD IS ASKING US TO USE REASON BUT NOT TO APPLY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION ON TRUTH OF FAITH.

[How will he manage to do that with certainty?]

DEFINITELY NOT BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION!

YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT TRUTH ARE CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURES. SO, THE TRUTH CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURES ARE NOT GIVEN BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THEN, TRUTH CAN EXIST WITHOUT PRIVATE REVELATION. MORE SO, THE HOLY SPIRIT WILLED THAT TRUTH CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURES ARE FREE FROM PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

IF THE TEACHINGS OF GERRY SOLIMAN IN HIS BLOG ARE WRITTEN OR MADE OUT OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THEN THEY ARE NOT BIBLICAL AND THEY ARE NOT FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT.

[Now let’s deal with your interpretation of 2nd Peter 1:20-21.

IT IS YOUR LOGIC THAT IS DANGEROUS AND ANTI-BIBLICAL. THE BIBLICAL TEXT IN CONTENTION DEMONSTRATES REJECTION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, BY THE HOLY SPIRIT NO LESS AND BY THE BIBLICAL WRITERS WHO WERE FAITHFUL TO THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS A REJECTED METHOD.

NOW, IN ORDER TO ESCAPE YOUR SHAME YOU SHAMELESSLY ARGUE THAT IT IS NOT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT CAUSES ERRORS AND MISTAKES BUT ‘ATTITUDE’. UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, THE BIBLICAL TEXT CLEARLY STATES ‘PRIVATE INTERPRETATION’ NOT ‘ATTITUDE’. HA, HA, HA... IT IS LIKE BLAMING THE MARTIANS ON THE SIN OF SATAN. HA, HA, HA...

THE BIBLICAL TRUTH IS NOT MADE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, THE HOLY SPIRIT DIDN’T INSPIRE THE BIBLICAL WRITER TO EMPLOY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS A METHOD. NOW, YOU ARE UTILIZING THE FULL FORCE OF YOUR INTELLECT TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS A VALID METHOD OR AN INDESPENSIBLE METHOD IN INTERPRETING THE TEXTS OF THE BIBLE. THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AS A METHOD IN BIBLICAL INSPIRATION BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSSARY, IT IS NOT INDESPENSABLE.

BESIDES, IF GOD REJECTS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION FOR HIS WORD IT IS SACRILEGIOUS TO APPLY, TO USE AND EVEN IMPOSE IT ON HIS WORD. WHO ARE YOU GERRY TO TELL US THAT WE HAVE TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF GOD AND ACCEPT PRIVATE REVELATION?

[ I’m sorry but that logic is self defeating. Why? Because it is telling me to stop my mind from processing the words I read or hear.]

HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE THE ONE WHO PUT THAT ORDEAL UNTO YOURSELF. THUS, IT IS YOUR OWN INVENTED DEFINITION OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THAT IS SELF-DEFEATING. YOU SHAMELESSLY DEODORIZED PRIVATE REVELATION SO THAT YOU CAN USE IT ON THE WORD OF GOD AND NOW YOU ARE PRETENDING AS IF I AM ASKING YOU TO STOP YOUR MIND FROM PROCESSING.

DON’T MAKE A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF GERRY. THE MENTAL PROCESSING OF WORDS ARE NOT BASED ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BUT FROM HUMAN CAPACITY TO REASON OUT.

HUMAN REASONING CAN EXIST WITHOUT PRIVATE REVELATION. WHEN ST. PAUL WROTE THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS HE WAS INTELLIGENT AND WAS IN FULL POWER OF HIS INTELLECT. THAT IS WHY HIS WRITINGS ARE COHERENT, SYSTEMATIC, INTELLIGIBLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE. HE DID THAT WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. AND SO DID THE EVANGELISTST AND THE APOSTOLIC WRITERS.

[So how can I even understand it the way you do if my mind will not function to interpret?]

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MIND IS NOT DEPENDENT ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE MIND CAN FUNCTIONS EVEN WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. IT IS INTERESTING TO KNOW THAT THE MIND OF GERRY SOLIMAN IS NOT FUNCTIONING WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND THERE IS NO MENTAL PROCESS THEREIN WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. HA, HA, HA... WHAT A MIND. HA, HA , HA... HOW CAN THE HOLY SPIRIT DWELL THEREIN? JUST WONDERING. AND HOW CAN THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE RESIDE IN THERE? JUST INQUIRING... HE, HE, HE...

[ How can the communication process be completed?]

ASK THE HOLY SPIRIT HOW DID THE BIBLE WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. ALL WE KNOW IS THAT BIBLICAL WRITERS WROTE AND FINISHED THEM WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

THE SOLUTION IS THAT YOU STOP MAKING A DELUSIONAL STAND THAT WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS CANNOT BE COMPLETED. THE BOOK OF PROVERBS IS WRITTEN AND PREACHED BY ONE OF THE MOST BRILLIANT HUMAN MIND IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD YET IT IS FREE FROM PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

[ How do you expect me to understand it the way you do if I just read it and do not process it in my mind for interpretation?]

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MENTAL PROCESS. MENTAL PROCESS CAN EXIST WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE HOLY SPIRIT DID THAT AND THE SACRED SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES ARE PROOF OF THAT FACT. HUMAN PERSONS ACCOMPLISHED A LOT OF WRITINGS AND PREACHINGS WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

YOU ARE IN A DELEMMA BECAUSE YOU MADE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION.

[Many times Christ asked “Did you not read?”, “How do you read it?” The pronouns used here is “you”, the individuals themselves whom Christ is talking to.]

HA, HA, HA... THE LORD USED THE PRONOUN ‘YOU’ BUT HE WAS NOT TELLING THEM TO FOLLOW PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. ON THE CONTRARY HE WAS REPRIMANDING THEM BECAUSE THEIR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS WRONG. DESPITE THE LORD’S CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE EXPLANATIONS THEY FAILED TO GRASP THE TRUE MEANING OF THE LORD’S TEACHING. SO JESUS PROMISED TO GIVE THEM THE HOLY SPIRIT TO CORRECT THEIR MISTAKES AND WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME THEY WERE GUIDED TO THE FULL TRUTH:

John 16:13 When, however, the Spirit comes, who reveals the truth about God, he will lead you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own authority, but he will speak of what he hears and will tell you of things to come.

THE HOLY SPIRIT GUIDED THEM TO ‘ALL’ TRUTH. YET THE HOLY SPIRIT DIDN’T USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. EVEN THE HOLY SPIRIT DARED NOT USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION BY HIMSELF: “He will not speak of His OWN authority”. Instead, “He will speak of what he hears”. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS SERIOUSLY AVOIDING PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

HOW CAN WE BY CONSCIENCE ACCEPT PRIVATE REVELATION? THAT IS SATANIC. TO ACCEPT WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED IS SATANIC.

[He makes people process the words they read.]

MENTAL PROCESSES OF THE WORDS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. OTHERWISE THE ENTIRE SCRIPTURES WERE ENSCRIPTURATED WITHOUT MENTAL PROCESS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MADE OUT OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

[ Christ did not ask, “What’s the interpretation of the people who sat in Moses’ seat?” In fact he never asked it.]

HE TOLD HIS DISCIPLES TO FOLLOW WHAT THEY SAY. IT MEANS THE LORD JESUS WAS NOT REJECTING THEIR AUTHORITY THAT HIS OWN FATHER HAD GIVEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

WHAT JESUS DID IS THAT HE GAVE AUTHORITY TO HIS OWN APOSTLES TO LEAD THE CHURCH TO THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH BY GIVING THEM THE HOLY SPIRIT [JOHN 16:13] AND HE BREATHED THE HOLY SPIRIT ON HIS APOSTLES TO EMPOWER THEM TO BE GENUINE TEACHERS OF THE FAITH UNDER THE GUIDE OF THE SAME SPIRIT:

Joh 20:21-22 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so I send you." Then HE BREATHED on them and said, "RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.

THE HOLY SPIRIT LED THEM TO ALL THE TRUTH AND PRESERVED THEM IN THE TRUTH OF FAITH, WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THEY WERE THE ONE WHO PREACHED THE PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURES, THEY WERE THE ONES WHO WROTE THE SCRIPTURES YET THEY DIDN’T USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

[This means he makes people think of the words in the Scripture.]

NOT ALL THINKING IS PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE TEACHER OF THE TRUTH AND HE CAN EVEN SEARCH THE DEPTHS OF GOD YET HE REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. IT IS EVIL IN GOD’S SIGHT.

ST. PAUL IS THE GREATEST PREACHER IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY YET HE DIDN’T USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IN ALL HIS LETTERS. NONE OF THEM WERE MADE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

ST. JOHN IS THE GREATEST OF THE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS YET HE DIDN’T USE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IN ALL HIS LETTERS. NONE OF THEM WERE MADE OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE BEST PROOFS THAT YOUR LOGIC IS ERRONEOUS AND DEFECTIVE.

IF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS HUMAN COMMUNICATION ITSELF, THEN THE BIBLICAL WRITERS ARE NOT HUMANS BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT, THEY PREACHED AND THEY WROTE WITHOUT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

WHAT GOD REJECTED, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REJECTED AS WELL.

GLORY TO THE FATHER AND TO THE SON AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT!

VIVA LA SANTA IGLESIA CATOLICA!

January 22, 2010 3:25 PM