It was not my intention to question your honesty. I apologize if I used the wrong word. I would not have said “honestly answered by the reader” but TRUTHFULLY said by the reader. Meaning, the words are there to be read. There can be no misunderstanding of Acts 2 if it is read AS IT IS WRITTEN. To “misunderstand” the simple words that are written cannot be logically explained. You can say you don’t believe Acts 2, but a person cannot say they can’t read CLEARLY what is CLEARLY WRITTEN.
No apologies needed, I just didn't want the ecumenical moment we were having to be dragged off point.
I accept that Scripture requires interpretation in order to render the meanings. I believe that the divisions over His call to unity hurt Him. The fact that so many of us disagree on so many of the points and meanings is proof to me that Jesus would not have left us on our own to decipher His Word. I am pretty sure will disagree on this point too, but Jesus sent us a Paraclete that speaks through His Church and its Magisterium.
When I have ever had difficulties with the teachings of the Church, whit sufficient reflection, rumination, prayer and further study, I have always found the root cause to be my limitations and not that of the Church. I suppose it stems from the differing way we both approach Church teaching. You look for the ways it can or might be wrong whereas I look for the ways it can be right and then conform myself to it.
Peace be with you