New Interpretation of the bible

[Jesusthekingofking]

Ever since protestantism exist there are so many new interpretation or so called system taught by multiple "teachers"

It's hard to discern. Calvinisms don't exist in the early church, dispensationalism was another alien system. Was so many Christians accept these teaching which the early church never taught? The early church isn't perfect, they're also trying at their time, but if something new came up after 1600 yrs I would question why the early theologian don't see the so-called light in the Bible.

If there's no new interpretation there's no new revelation, there's only false teaching. The reformation theology isn't trying to invent new doctrine but go back to the original teaching or form of the church.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ever since protestantism exist there are so many new interpretation or so called system taught by multiple "teachers". It's hard to discern. Calvinisms don't exist in the early church....

Sure they do. Every denomination in the various churches simply stresses different aspects of Christianity and scripture. Each of the early churches had similar differences and different needs that were addressed in the various letters. That's why each of the letters to the churches have different names. They were infant churches and had infant church problems. None of the letters in scripture were written to "Grown up" churches or people who had a copy of the Bible.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

It's also significant that a number of the "modern" revisions of doctrine have their roots in early heresies that were specifically condemned. Surely the increase in liberal theology is one of the signs we're in some stage of the End Times.

The Orthodox make the valid point that the supposed sola scriptura of Protestantism has resulted in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of competing understandings of Scripture. Sola scriptura ends up really being "my understanding of Scripture" versus "your understanding of Scripture" versus "their understanding of Scripture."

There is a branch of Protestantism called "paleo-orthodoxy" that, like Orthodoxy, focuses primarily on the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers as well as Scripture. Thomas C. Oden was one of the leading exponents. His Classic Christianity is one of the better systematic theologies I have found: Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology: Oden, Thomas C.: 9780061449710: Amazon.com: Books.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Sure they do. Every denomination in the various churches simply stresses different aspects of Christianity and scripture. Each of the early churches had similar differences and different needs that were addressed in the various letters. That's why each of the letters to the churches have different names. They were infant churches and had infant church problems. None of the letters in scripture were written to "Grown up" churches or people.

Hence the ecumenical councils. Who Jesus was, how God could incarnate as a man, and what it all meant, especially for Judaism, understandably were puzzles with which the early Christians struggled. To say that the competing denominations of today's Protestantism "simply stress different aspects" is pretty optimistic (which is why I rated your post as such!). I think it goes beyond that. I think Protestantism has taken a fundamentally wrong turn. FWIW, Martin Luther was generally positive toward Orthodoxy, which he referred to as the "Greek church." I'm not sure how positive he'd be toward today's Protestantism. It's amusing how many Christians think the faith is divided into Catholicism and Protestantism and aren't even aware that Orthodoxy exists or has the strongest claim to maintaining an unbroken lineage from the Apsotles.

 

[messianist]

There are over 46 thousand denominations in the world, all believe they have the truth.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's amusing how many Christians think the faith is divided into Catholicism and Protestantism and aren't even aware that Orthodoxy exists or has the strongest claim to maintaining an unbroken lineage from the Apsotles.

Is there some reason that would be important?
The Apostles mostly abandoned Jesus after spending years in his company.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are over 46 thousand denominations in the world, all believe they have the truth.

As I said, they each emphasize different aspects of the historical Jesus. So they all do have the truth.
If you attend different denominations each week, you can discover this for yourself. The differences are minor.

 

[messianist]

As I said, they each emphasize different aspects of the historical Jesus. So they all do have the truth.
If you attend different denominations each week, you can discover this for yourself.

No they don’t all have the truth there all stating different things .

 

[SkyWriting]

No they don’t all have the truth there all stating different things .

All different passages from the same book. My wife and I attended about a dozen different churches. There are actually bigger differences in the same denomination.

 

[messianist]

All different passages from the same book.

They all cover all passages ,but not in the truth they need to be ,

 

[messianist]

They all cover all passages but not in the truth they need to be ,

Where in scripture does it state that different branches cover different scriptures?

 

[SkyWriting]

They all cover all passages but not in the truth they need to be ,

There is actually far more variety of beliefs inside one church building than there are differences between denominations.

Comparing denominations, you find small differences. Comparing the person sitting on your left with the one on your right, one is a former prostitute (or active one) and the other is a Muslim married to a Christian who doesn't attend church.

So the variety of beliefs is huge inside one church. The differences between denominations is small.

 

[SkyWriting]

Where in scripture does it state that different branches cover different scriptures?

The letters to the churches each cover different problems the various churches are having.
The early churches were extremely diverse and each had unique ideas and methods.

Paul's Letters to the Churches (Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, and Second Thessalonians) were written by Paul over a period of fourteen years to seven churches scattered throughout Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome.

https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Letters-Churches-Corinthians-Thessalonians/dp/1932199098#:~:text=Paul's Letters to the Churches (Romans, First Corinthians, Second,Minor, Greece, and Rome.

 

[messianist]

There is actually far more variety of beliefs inside one church building than there are differences between denominations.

Comparing denominations, you find small differences. Comparing the person sitting on your left with the one on your right, one is a former prostitute (or active one) and the other is a Muslim married to a Christian who doesn't attend church.

So the variety of beliefs is huge inside one church. The differences between denominations is small.

We aren’t talking about individual here we are talking about denomination, there are more than just a few minor differences, where in scripture does it state there are different branches in relation to scripture?

 

[messianist]

The letters to the churches each cover different problems the various churches are having.
The early churches were extremely diverse and each had unique ideas and methods.

Paul's Letters to the Churches (Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, and Second Thessalonians) were written by Paul over a period of fourteen years to seven churches scattered throughout Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome.

https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Letters-Churches-Corinthians-Thessalonians/dp/1932199098#:~:text=Paul's Letters to the Churches (Romans, First Corinthians, Second,Minor, Greece, and Rome.

Ok at that time Paul was addressing, different circumstances that were in those people at that time. We now have that all available to us in one book, the denomination don’t cover a single branch they all have there own interpretation of what they believe is the truth on scripture across the board.

 

[SkyWriting]

We aren’t talking about individual here we are talking about denomination, there are more than just a few minor differences, where in scripture does it state there are different branches in relation to scripture?

Paul's Letters to the Churches (Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, and Second Thessalonians) each describe different problems and address different issues.

 

[messianist]

Ok at that time Paul was addressing, different circumstances that were in those people at that time. We now have that all available to us in one book, the denomination don’t cover a single branch they all have there own interpretation of what they believe is the truth on scripture across the board.[/QUOTE

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Is there some reason that would be important?
The Apostles mostly abandoned Jesus after spending years in his company.

Well, it was important to me. I spent decades of my life as a Protestant, largely oblivious to Orthodoxy. I had no idea that it was, in fact, the one true church as I now believe it to be. In 52 years as a Christian, I have never encountered a Protestant who had any understanding of Orthodoxy much beyond "they're basically just Catholics, right?" Uh, not exactly.

We only know the fate of a couple of the Apostles, but tradition hardly has them all abandoning the faith. At Jesus' arrest, yes, but not after the Resurrection. I don't see that whatever point you're making goes anywhere. There is no question that the oral eyewitness tradition is the source of the Gospels and that the Apostles and close disciples were the principal eyewitnesses. The Apostolic and Early Church Fathers were obviously the next closest to those who had actually known Jesus or known those who had known Jesus.

We can agree to disagree, but I believe there are far more and more significant differences within Protestantism than you're suggesting, as well as some serious differences between Orthodoxy and much Protestantism.

 

[SkyWriting]

We aren’t talking about individual here we are talking about denomination, there are more than just a few minor differences, where in scripture does it state there are different branches in relation to scripture?

The differences are which passages get emphasized. Every denomination uses the same Bible source as it's reference.

 

[messianist]

The differences are which passages get emphasized. Every denomination uses the same Bible source as it's reference.

They use them differently because they are not conveying the truth, if it worked as you say we would have set times in different denominations learning the different aspects and we all would be living and seeing understanding the scriptures the same but we don’t .