- Nov 30, 2003
- 1,446
- 375
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Politics
- US-Republican
Wrong. The same illogical argument can be made concerning the Old Testament - that only the scribes and Pharisees can interpret it.
It is ironic that Jesus sided with the Pharisees more than the Sadducees in matters of doctrine – especially the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees taught that we should only hold to the first five books of Moses (called the Pentateuch) as being the Word of God, and the first five books do not say much about the resurrection of the dead and after all. So Jesus rejected the Sadducees Pentateuch-only in favor of the Pharisees’ the Pentateuch AND tradition.
Can only Bible publishers interpret the Bible?
That is what gets me of my fellow Protestants when I was one myself in a Protestant seminary. Since you would say that no one is infallible, then why are you so trusting to the publishers of the Bible? Why would you trust unknown translators of the NIV, NASB, or KJB Bibles. It is only the original documents that are infallible, right? And the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek? So why aren’t you going to the nearest seminary to learn Hebrew and Greek, so that you can know what it says without depending on what you pastor say it means in the Greek or how the translators render it. They are not infallible. Right?
And this is what I learned from a conservative, evangelical Protestant seminary. Most of the last chapter of Mark was not in the original Gospel of Mark. It was added later on. All that stuff that Jesus said about followers lifting up serpents and they shall not harm them was not in the original document. But it is there in our Bibles! Remember the story of the adulterous about to be stoned and Jesus said the hew who is without sin cast the first stone. It was not in the original gospel. Bible scholars noticed that these passages were not in the earliest copies we have they must have been added later. Look it up! Do not just take my word for it. This can be easily researched on the internet.
This is tragic for Protestants but not for Catholics. It matters little to me whether these passages were in the originals or not. It matters little to if the added by someone in the second or third century. These stories were part of oral tradition until someone added them to the gospels. And I believe that oral tradition is reliable. Also, the Church canonized the Bible in 405 AD. So I know that everything, including these two stories, are part of the Word of God because the Church tells me so! But this is a dilemma for a Protestant. If he concedes that these two passages are not really part of the original NT documents then what does he do? Should he reject these passages? Should the Protestants take these passages out their Bibles? And are there other passages that should also be taken out? Without the Church we cannot ever be sure how accurate our translation is.
The Mass was in Latin because Latin at that time was the universal language throughout the Roman empire. The Romans spoke Latin. Ever since the Romans conquered Europe they had spread Latin throughout Europe. This did not keep the Mass from the people. It made the Mass understandable to the people.They suppressed it from the public.And they kept even the masses in Latin. They took away the Bible from the public. They weren't even Bible publishers. They were Bible suppressors. Not only so but with the rise of Catholicism came the rise of illiteracy.
Before the 1500’s the printing press was not yet created. The Bible had to be hand-copied. To purchase a Bible would cost a person a year’s wages. Illiteracy was always a problem because there was not enough money for a commoner to purchase books .If the Bible was suppressed by the Church, then why did the Church not just destroy all the copies of the Bible? True, the Bible was chained in the Church. But that just show how the Bible was so precious to the Church. It was so valuable that they wanted to make sure that no one would steal it. But everyone could still read it in church. Also, the classic The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis. There is a whole chapter on reading the Bible prayerfully. If the Church was suppressing the Bible, why would one of its churchmen write to laypeople on the proper attitude in reading the Bible?
Yes, people would memorize very well. Since they had no printing press, they had to rely on their memory. This is oral tradition was so trustworthy. People would memorize what Jesus and the apostles said, not just what they wrote.In Jesus' day ordinary people would memorize large sections of scripture.
Catholicism did just the opposite- discouraging people from reading at all. And that's why there was such a dramatic transition due to the Reformation when people FINALLY got their hands on the Bible. But even to this day the Catholic Church suppresses the scriptures.
Please provide primary sources of the Church discouraging anyone from reading scripture. The only they every restricted the reading of the Bible was when the Abengians took verses out of context to tell the people that suicide was a good thing. I have been back in the Catholic Church for the last 14 years, and I have never been suppressed from reading the Bible. And I think that I had demonstrated, whether you agree with me or not, that I have a good knowledge of the Bible.
Upvote
0