Is the Bible not our one and only source?

[mlepfitjw]

Glad all these wonderful and beautiful people were able to help you HBAT. Hah you are not stupid by no means, hanging by a thread is a lot to type.

 

[TJB]

I’m not saying that clergy (or the different perspectives of other Christians such as what we see here) doesn’t have its place. For one, clergy performs other important functions beyond Biblical interpretation. And I certainly don’t think it’s a bad idea to turn to clergy for Biblical advice, as we know for sure a clergyman has committed to absorbing the Bible. But for me, the advice dispensed would have to be backed up by a Biblical source/passage. And if such passage is ambiguous, then I feel it’s ok for me to adopt my own interpretation even if it’s different than what the church, or clergy, has either mandated or suggested.

I think you can have a good or bad experience with the clergy, but it is ultimately a chicken and egg discussion. The Bible didn't drop our of the sky, it is a collection of books with multiple authors, and it was a church council that agreed what books could be considered canonical or not. i.e what books were in or what ones were out. What Gospels were considered apocryphal (about 20 in all). So I think the Catholic and Orthodox position is that the authority of scripture has to be balanced by the authority of the church - does that make any sense?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The responses I get here may change my mind on this, but my thought is that the Bible is our point of reference and, as blasphemous as this may sound, once one has read the Bible he/she then knows as much as anyone, including men/women of clergy, about what God’s intentions are for us. I mean, the Bible is essentially all we have, right? And, as is evidenced by this site, much of the Bible is open* for interpretation. Why would one who has read the Bible need to turn to clergy unless he didn’t want to take the time to read the Bible himself? We need the advice of doctors, lawyers, mechanics, etc. because we chose not to take the time to study and learn the volumes of information required to become an expert. The Bible contains many pages, but not so many that one couldn’t read it and absorb it in less than say, a year or two. So unless clergy has secret access to some other holy books or writings not included in the Bible, why couldn’t a catholic, for example, who has diligently read his bible, claim to know as much as the Pope about the teachings of God?

I’m not saying that clergy (or the different perspectives of other Christians such as what we see here) doesn’t have its place. For one, clergy performs other important functions beyond Biblical interpretation. And I certainly don’t think it’s a bad idea to turn to clergy for Biblical advice, as we know for sure a clergyman has committed to absorbing the Bible. But for me, the advice dispensed would have to be backed up by a Biblical source/passage. And if such passage is ambiguous, then I feel it’s ok for me to adopt my own interpretation even if it’s different than what the church, or clergy, has either mandated or suggested.

Agree or not?

(*- don’t know that “open” is the right word. “subject to”, maybe?)

According to the bible, we have creation for parables, and the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

Thus, only learning from the bible can leave you wanting for real Godly instruction.

Also, if you don't apply what you learn in the real world, you don't understand it very well.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

I think you can have a good or bad experience with the clergy, but it is ultimately a chicken and egg discussion. The Bible didn't drop our of the sky, it is a collection of books with multiple authors, and it was a church council that agreed what books could be considered canonical or not. i.e what books were in or what ones were out. What Gospels were considered apocryphal (about 20 in all). So I think the Catholic and Orthodox position is that the authority of scripture has to be balanced by the authority of the church - does that make any sense?

Thanks for the reply, TJB.
Yes, that does make sense. I'll admit that I'm not up to speed on the genealogy of the Bible but I do recall hearing something like this. I'm wondering what period in time the church council assembled the Bible? Was it a month after Revelations or years? Regardless, it seems to me that when this is taken into consideration, the "word of God" was decided/assembled in a big way by human intervention. A bit unsettling to me. Unless we want to adopt the idea that it was God's intervention that guided the church council.
(Do you/or anyone know if we have access to the gospels/books that were rejected?)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Thanks for the reply, TJB.
Yes, that does make sense. I'll admit that I'm not up to speed on the genealogy of the Bible but I do recall hearing something like this. I'm wondering what period in time the church council assembled the Bible? Was it a month after Revelations or years? Regardless, it seems to me that when this is considered, the "word of God" was decided/assembled in a big way by human intervention. A bit unsettling to me. Unless we want to adopt the idea that it was God's intervention that guided the church council.
(Do you/or anyone know if we have access to the gospels/books that were rejected?)

I'd recommend to read the seven ecumenical councils. Work info: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I recall after Nicea canon lists started emerging.

See also Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers for books not in the canon.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

According to the bible, we have creation for parables, and the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

Thus, only learning from the bible can leave you wanting for real Godly instruction.

Also, if you don't apply what you learn in the real world, you don't understand it very well.

Thanks for the reply, Michael.
Regarding your first sentence: I take you to mean the Holy Spirit as an external source, which I'm seeing alot of and expect to see more. My response has been that this seems like, i dunno, a circular reference for lack of a better, in that without the Bible we know nothing of the Holy Spirit. Then there's the idea that the Holy Spirit that dwells within an individual is as different in each human as there are different humans. I mean, my Holy Spirit may tell me that it's ok to accept the extra change the cashier gives me (essentially stealing) because I've fallen on hard times and God is trying to help me out. Not saying that it does or will, but not all of us are blessed with the ability to make the distinction between what the Holy Spirit is telling us and what we want to tell ourselves. We'd have to refer to the Bible. And I entirely miss what you mean by, "we have creation for parables".
Regarding your second sentence: I agree with this. Although one could take it to mean that the Bible is not real Godly instruction.
Regarding your last sentence: That's a fine statement, but to me it seems kinda universal and not really pertinent to the discussion. But I could be missing something on this.

 

[Norbert L]

once one has read the Bible he/she then knows as much as anyone

I don't think it works quite that way. The Bible was written for us but not to us.

Take for instance the popular idea that the OT is just plagiarized from ancient Mesopotamian myths while the Jews were captive in Babylon. Any person would be hard pressed to disprove that without relying other ancient non-biblical sources.

Another important doctrine is the Trinity and how other ancient rabbinical sources admit that numerous Jews during the second temple period also believed the Godhead was more than one person.

And then there's the DSS which have a non-biblical writing that also contains the words, "works of the law" and how it deepened that disputed doctrine.

Historical sources can and do play a role in how we understand and interpret the Bible.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

I don't think it works quite that way. The Bible was written for us but not to us.

Take for instance the popular idea that the OT is just plagiarized from ancient Mesopotamian myths while the Jews were captive in Babylon. Any person would be hard pressed to disprove that without relying other ancient non-biblical sources.

Another important doctrine is the Trinity and how other ancient rabbinical sources admit that numerous Jews during the second temple period also believed the Godhead was more than one person.

And then there's the DSS which have a non-biblical writing that also contains the words, "works of the law" and how it deepened that disputed doctrine.

Historical sources can and do play a role in how we understand and interpret the Bible.

Thanks for the reply, Norbert.
Informative and pertinent to the subject matter.
But, although I don't think it was your intention, I get this vague sense that the Bible loses credibility with this info. Which leaves me completely sourceless.
I want to reiterate, though, that I know that's not your intent and this is a "vague/kneejerk" sense. I'd have to research this info to verify this feeling.

 

[Taodeching]

The responses I get here may change my mind on this, but my thought is that the Bible is our point of reference and, as blasphemous as this may sound, once one has read the Bible he/she then knows as much as anyone, including men/women of clergy, about what God’s intentions are for us. I mean, the Bible is essentially all we have, right? And, as is evidenced by this site, much of the Bible is open* for interpretation. Why would one who has read the Bible need to turn to clergy unless he didn’t want to take the time to read the Bible himself? We need the advice of doctors, lawyers, mechanics, etc. because we chose not to take the time to study and learn the volumes of information required to become an expert. The Bible contains many pages, but not so many that one couldn’t read it and absorb it in less than say, a year or two. So unless clergy has secret access to some other holy books or writings not included in the Bible, why couldn’t a catholic, for example, who has diligently read his bible, claim to know as much as the Pope about the teachings of God?

I’m not saying that clergy (or the different perspectives of other Christians such as what we see here) doesn’t have its place. For one, clergy performs other important functions beyond Biblical interpretation. And I certainly don’t think it’s a bad idea to turn to clergy for Biblical advice, as we know for sure a clergyman has committed to absorbing the Bible. But for me, the advice dispensed would have to be backed up by a Biblical source/passage. And if such passage is ambiguous, then I feel it’s ok for me to adopt my own interpretation even if it’s different than what the church, or clergy, has either mandated or suggested.

Agree or not?

(*- don’t know that “open” is the right word. “subject to”, maybe?)

I am in agreement with the second post. Just merely reading a thing in one's own language that has been translated many times over does not make one knowledgeable or an expert. It would take countless lifetimes to learn the truths in the Bible.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Thanks for the reply, Michael.
Regarding your first sentence: I take you to mean the Holy Spirit as an external source, which I'm seeing alot of and expect to see more. My response has been that this seems like, i dunno, a circular reference for lack of a better, in that without the Bible we know nothing of the Holy Spirit. Then there's the idea that the Holy Spirit that dwells within an individual is as different in each human as there are different humans. I mean, my Holy Spirit may tell me that it's ok to accept the extra change the cashier gives me (essentially stealing) because I've fallen on hard times and God is trying to help me out. Not saying that it does or will, but not all of us are blessed with the ability to make the distinction between what the Holy Spirit is telling us and what we want to tell ourselves. We'd have to refer to the Bible. And I entirely miss what you mean by, "we have creation for parables".
Regarding your second sentence: I agree with this. Although one could take it to mean that the Bible is not real Godly instruction.
Regarding your last sentence: That's a fine statement, but to me it seems kinda universal and not really pertinent to the discussion. But I could be missing something on this.

In terms of the first section, I referred to what was mentioned in the bible as sources outside the bible, because you referred to the bible. Since we are a new creation in Christ, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit - there's a lot to be learned from this alone that a not born again bible reader would miss.

In Romans 1:20 the parables bit is explained, though it is also mentioned in the gospels through the parables of Jesus, the apostles in their letters also use parables.

In terms of the second question, this means more that the Godly teaching is not full. For example, you can preach the gospel, but to "fully" preach it, you need to work signs and wonders as the apostles did. (Romans 15:19) - and also, the words God has spoken are truth, The truth sets you free, and also Jesus is the truth. Thus truth is deeper than just information, it sets free, and it becomes a part of you.

The third point is the most relevant, by applying what we learn - we learn more - things only those who do the will of God can learn.

 

[concretecamper]

I'm thinking Revelation 22:17 thru 19 kinda supports, but I can see where an argument could be made that it does not.

because the writer mentions specifically the prophecies of THIS book

" For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.

I think it is say to say that it is not referring to the Bible.

What would be an example of another source?
And whatever the external source may be, wouldn't it have to be validated through the Bible?

According to the Bible, we are commanded to listen to the Church. St Paul tells Timothy the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. In Matthew, Jesus tells us to Listen to the Church.

Now, many people say scripture is the supreme rule of faith for a Christian. They are free to follow that model, but it just isnt supported by scripture...it is a man made idea.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The responses I get here may change my mind on this, but my thought is that the Bible is our point of reference and, as blasphemous as this may sound, once one has read the Bible he/she then knows as much as anyone, including men/women of clergy, about what God’s intentions are for us. I mean, the Bible is essentially all we have, right? And, as is evidenced by this site, much of the Bible is open* for interpretation. Why would one who has read the Bible need to turn to clergy unless he didn’t want to take the time to read the Bible himself? We need the advice of doctors, lawyers, mechanics, etc. because we chose not to take the time to study and learn the volumes of information required to become an expert. The Bible contains many pages, but not so many that one couldn’t read it and absorb it in less than say, a year or two. So unless clergy has secret access to some other holy books or writings not included in the Bible, why couldn’t a catholic, for example, who has diligently read his bible, claim to know as much as the Pope about the teachings of God?

I’m not saying that clergy (or the different perspectives of other Christians such as what we see here) doesn’t have its place. For one, clergy performs other important functions beyond Biblical interpretation. And I certainly don’t think it’s a bad idea to turn to clergy for Biblical advice, as we know for sure a clergyman has committed to absorbing the Bible. But for me, the advice dispensed would have to be backed up by a Biblical source/passage. And if such passage is ambiguous, then I feel it’s ok for me to adopt my own interpretation even if it’s different than what the church, or clergy, has either mandated or suggested.

Agree or not?

(*- don’t know that “open” is the right word. “subject to”, maybe?)

The clergy/laity divide is a religious construct designed to keep power concentrated in the hands of the minority. Any honest reading of the New Testament confirms this. There are elders, who oversee the affairs of the local church and various gifts - apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors. Their role is NOT to control and force feed a denominational slant to God's people. All Christians have a place in the Body of Christ. Leadership should be facilitating the spiritual maturing of Christians. Mostly, This is the reverse of reality. Most Christians are treated like perpetual children.

The Bible is wonderful. I have read it through and through. However, it is not a substitute for relationship with God. Some seem intent on marrying a stone (the Law) others a book (the Bible). You can't have a relationship with either.

For years, I wanted to go visit the Grand Canyon. I read how much people were impressed and saw photos and videos. That just fed my desire to see for myself. Eventually (2016), I went there for several days. It was breathtaking. I'd go again in a heartbeat. But the promotional material I read and the pictures were not the reality. The Bible in some ways is like that. It can inform us, encourage us, rebuke us (if necessary), stir us up and comfort us. But it cannot take the place of relationship.

Lord Jesus gave us His Holy Spirit to lead us into truth. Guess who the Truth is. Lord Jesus came to give us new life, not yet another book of rules that includes a self help manual. Lord Jesus did not say, "Apart from the Bible, you can do nothing". No! Apart from Him we can do nothing! So countless Christians will present their own works to God, proudly expecting a pat on the back. And God will say, "That's nothing".

Until and unless Christians get hold of this truth and let this truth get hold of them, the Church will continue to be a testament to lost opportunities. Thank God for those who have seen the light. They are working for the Kingdom of God and they will bring Satan to heel. Mostly they are hidden gems, ignored and neglected, especially by those who call themselves leaders. God sees these gems, God acknowledges them and God will reward them.

 

[GodLovesCats]

One more thing I'd like to add. Interpretation of the Bible is not arbitrary, so we still need leaders to give us their opinions, from which we can evaluate how various people interpret scripture. Then, we still don't have to pick a certain interpretation and commit to it, because there will always be controversies we don't have absolute answers to, until that day "when all things are revealed."

When I say "not arbitrary," I'm talking about the many people who take Scripture out of context and make it mean something it didn't originally mean. A new idea might pop into their mind while reading, and they jump to a conclusion that the idea is inspired of God, so they commit to that idea, and claim it's what the scripture means. This happens all the time, and is a very ancient problem.

This is what I struggle with. The Bible says God knows everything, never changes, and wants everyone to know His Word clearly. So why is the Bible written in a way that allows disagreements on what the verses and chapters mean? If God wants to be clear to everyone, why is the Bible often hard to understand even if you have been saved for decades? For example, whether you believe baptism is required to be saved or not, you probably got your belief from Scripture. There should be no confusion about what we must do to become Christians and demonstrate our love for God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But there always is and for that reason, we need pastors and priests to help ourselves understand it.

 

[chilehed]

The responses I get here may change my mind on this, but my thought is that the Bible is our point of reference and, as blasphemous as this may sound, once one has read the Bible he/she then knows as much as anyone, including men/women of clergy, about what God’s intentions are for us

Except that the Bible specifically says that this isn't true, and that idea was totally unknown in Christianity until the Reformation. Acts 8:30-31; 1 Tim 1:3, 2 Pet. 3:16–.

 

[Norbert L]

Bible loses credibility with this info. Which leaves me completely sourceless.

How did you reach the conclusion that the Bible loses credibility with this info? Was it that we have historical rabbinical writings that confirm that monotheistic Jews in the second temple period were aware that the Godhead consisted of more than one person? Or was it upon closer examination the Babylonian myths in circulation at that time, the Israelites aren't plagiarizing from them. Or was it the reference to how one ancient community during that time period understood what the works of the law entailed and meant to them?

I imagine it would be the last one considering that discussion is still immature and can be rather touchy to some Christians on both sides.

The way I see it, numerous Christian apologists/evangelists nowadays have been successfully including non-biblical sources to point out to non-believers and naysayers that the historical evidence also confirms the word of God as found in the Bible.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

How did you reach the conclusion that the Bible loses credibility with this info? Was it that we have historical rabbinical writings that confirm that monotheistic Jews in the second temple period were aware that the Godhead consisted of more than one person? Or was it upon closer examination the Babylonian myths in circulation at that time, the Israelites aren't plagiarizing from them. Or was it the reference to how one ancient community during that time period understood what the works of the law entailed and meant to them?

I imagine it would be the last one considering that discussion is still immature and can be rather touchy to some Christians on both sides.

The way I see it, numerous Christian apologists/evangelists nowadays have been successfully including non-biblical sources to point out to non-believers and naysayers that the historical evidence also confirms the word of God as found in the Bible.

Yeah, you're right Norbert. You said nothing that should make feel the Bible loses credibility. I somehow took you out of context, due mostly to my not having any knowledge of the information you presented, I think. Again, very informative. Thanks and sorry about that.

 

[tdidymas]

Thanks for the reply, TJB.
Yes, that does make sense. I'll admit that I'm not up to speed on the genealogy of the Bible but I do recall hearing something like this. I'm wondering what period in time the church council assembled the Bible? Was it a month after Revelations or years? Regardless, it seems to me that when this is taken into consideration, the "word of God" was decided/assembled in a big way by human intervention. A bit unsettling to me. Unless we want to adopt the idea that it was God's intervention that guided the church council.
(Do you/or anyone know if we have access to the gospels/books that were rejected?)

The Bible as we know it today (consisting of the 27 books of the NT canon in addition to the OT) was officially established in the 4th Century. However, prior to that some of the early church fathers recognized some controversy over what was inspired, and some of them listed what they considered inspired works in various of their writings. But such things happened only because there was a need for it. From the 1st to the 4th Century, the churches were already using the inspired NT books which were recognized as canon material. There wasn't a need for an official Bible at that time because the churches were pretty much in unity about which writings were inspired.

Hope this helps.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

The Bible as we know it today (consisting of the 27 books of the NT canon in addition to the OT) was officially established in the 4th Century. However, prior to that some of the early church fathers recognized some controversy over what was inspired, and some of them listed what they considered inspired works in various of their writings. But such things happened only because there was a need for it. From the 1st to the 4th Century, the churches were already using the inspired NT books which were recognized as canon material. There wasn't a need for an official Bible at that time because the churches were pretty much in unity about which writings were inspired.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, tdidymas.
yes, very helpful.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

I'd recommend to read the seven ecumenical councils. Work info: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I recall after Nicea canon lists started emerging.

See also Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers for books not in the canon.

Thanks, Michael.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

The clergy/laity divide is a religious construct designed to keep power concentrated in the hands of the minority. Any honest reading of the New Testament confirms this. There are elders, who oversee the affairs of the local church and various gifts - apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors. Their role is NOT to control and force feed a denominational slant to God's people. All Christians have a place in the Body of Christ. Leadership should be facilitating the spiritual maturing of Christians. Mostly, This is the reverse of reality. Most Christians are treated like perpetual children.

The Bible is wonderful. I have read it through and through. However, it is not a substitute for relationship with God. Some seem intent on marrying a stone (the Law) others a book (the Bible). You can't have a relationship with either.

For years, I wanted to go visit the Grand Canyon. I read how much people were impressed and saw photos and videos. That just fed my desire to see for myself. Eventually (2016), I went there for several days. It was breathtaking. I'd go again in a heartbeat. But the promotional material I read and the pictures were not the reality. The Bible in some ways is like that. It can inform us, encourage us, rebuke us (if necessary), stir us up and comfort us. But it cannot take the place of relationship.

Lord Jesus gave us His Holy Spirit to lead us into truth. Guess who the Truth is. Lord Jesus came to give us new life, not yet another book of rules that includes a self help manual. Lord Jesus did not say, "Apart from the Bible, you can do nothing". No! Apart from Him we can do nothing! So countless Christians will present their own works to God, proudly expecting a pat on the back. And God will say, "That's nothing".

Until and unless Christians get hold of this truth and let this truth get hold of them, the Church will continue to be a testament to lost opportunities. Thank God for those who have seen the light. They are working for the Kingdom of God and they will bring Satan to heel. Mostly they are hidden gems, ignored and neglected, especially by those who call themselves leaders. God sees these gems, God acknowledges them and God will reward them.

Thanks for the response, Aussie.
Interesting take in that it's "oustide the box". I like that. It appears as though you have a great relationship with God. I applaud that and am glad for you. But there are some of us who go through dark periods where we feel God has abandoned us (and maybe he has for all I know). I think under those circumstances the Bible is the most reliable source/tool to restore or establish the relationship.