Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, if there was something wrong then there would had been others who criticize those ideas.So for the Orthodox it is tradition which interprets the Scriptures but not always infallibly?
If all interpretations can be said to be wrong, why not have them at all?
I think best way is to not make interpretations, but to understand Bible directly as it says things.
That's why Sola Scriptura should not be the base of doctrine.The Bible cannot be properly understood out of its entire context. For example:
Matthew 5:39 --- “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” --- In an honour/shame, domination/submission culture such as existed in the first century in the Middle East, this saying has a far different meaning than a straightforward reading of it might indicate. If a man were to strike a social equal, he would strike him with the palm of his right hand on the left cheek. However if a man were to slap a social inferior he would do so with the back of his hand to the inferior’s right cheek. If the inferior were then to turn his other cheek it would force his assailant to treat him as a social equal by striking with the palm of his right hand. Since slapping is no longer a widespread cultural practice, it can be helpful if you could actually act this out with another person. Jesus’ audience likely would have had a good laugh at his comment. Jesus is not counseling humility here, he is counseling a covert defiance.
Matthew 5:40 ---“If someone sues you for your coat, give up your shirt as well.” --- In Jewish law if you fail to repay a debt you may be taken to court and if you are still unable to repay, the lender is entitled to take your coat. The lender holds the coat during the day but he is obliged to return it at night because the coat or cloak doubled as a blanket at night. In a two-garment society this would be highly embarrassing to the debtor. However it would be even more embarrassing to the court and the lender if the debtor were to turn over both garments and stand there naked. Remember this was a society with a strong taboo against public nakedness. Using this somewhat risque humour Jesus is once again counseling covert defiance and taking the part of the poor against the rich. I'll bet his audience laughed out loud. Humour is a great aid to the memory.
Matthew 5:41 --- “If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” --- In Roman law a soldier had every right to have a civilian carry his pack for one [Roman] mile but no further. For the civilian to carry the pack a further distance would be to embarrass the soldier and possibly to get him in trouble with a superior officer. Once again Jesus takes the part of the small against the powerful by suggesting covert defiance. I suspect that Jesus’ listeners ‘got the message’ especially since it was couched in such sarcastic humour.
Without the context one could draw entirely wrong conclusions.
Read below:It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church. I've also heard from people on these forums that they decide what church they go to, based on whether or not a church follows the Bible.
The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them (not all Christians, but a lot).
Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!
As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.
So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.
Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching. While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.
I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.
But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...
Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?
View attachment 249739
It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church.
The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them...
Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!
As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.
So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.
I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.
This final paragraph is a collection of logical fallacies:But if you just use your own Bible,
Sounds like an invitation to an argument I'm unwilling to attend.It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church. I've also heard from people on these forums that they decide what church they go to, based on whether or not a church follows the Bible.
The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them (not all Christians, but a lot).
Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!
As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.
So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.
Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching. While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.
I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.
But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...
Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?
View attachment 249739
You are generous beyond necessity.Probably possible literacy of some doctrines?
We don't need no steenkeen badges! LOLI won't say I have the correct understanding of the bible. But the understanding I do have is the best my ability allows me at this time. As time goes by it changes and revises itself. My authority. And that's good enough for me.
This works for me.***
Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Thank you for saving me the time.It is the most important. My interpretation is the only one that determines my fate.
I never have a perfect interpretation. Neither do you. A man can be a genius, but if he isn't as smart as he thinks he is, then he will behave like a fool. Your church has no perfect doctrine, either, but if it considers itself infallible, then it will be the most fallen church on earth. Everything needs caution.
I side with the authority of Christ.
I know a tree by its fruit.
You are generous beyond necessity.
Get a hold of a copy of "Papal Sin - Structures of Deciet" by Garry Wills and read how excess power cause infantilism and how the doctrine of papal infallibility came about.
Mr. Wills is still RC, however.
His book is so reviled by most RCs, that he wrote another book titled, "Why I Am Still Catholic". (lol)
Well self-proclaimed "Reverand", why do you think that interpreting a book requires some kind of "authority" to tell you what it means, when the point of you reading a book is for you yourself to understand its meaning by its context.But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...
Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?
Oh boy. Now you did it.Well self-proclaimed "Reverand", why do you think that interpreting a book requires some kind of "authority" to tell you what it means, when the point of you reading a book is for you yourself to understand its meaning by its context.
Do you understand what I just wrote? Would I ask you as to what authority do you base your interpretation upon what I wrote? That's just stupid. The Bible is easy enough to understand from its very context. To understand the Bible I suggest they read it rather than deferring to so called "authorities", post-Biblical theologians many of whom don't know what they're talking about.
We are the "Church", we who are believers in Christ. The "Church" is not an exclusive club of celebrity Christians. What Christ left us with is the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
1Cor 2:
12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
As in?Probably possible literacy of some doctrines?
That's the thing. I've been unjustifiably banned twice from these forums for "boldly" telling the truth. And I expect to the banned yet again for doing so in the near future. Seems the nature of these forums that Bereans are not welcomed.Oh boy. Now you did it.
You told a bald faced truth.
Are you trying to cause trouble?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?