And King Jimmy.
Protestants had this theory that everyone could read the Bible for him/herself and with the help of the Holy Spirit determine exactly what it was saying. (The Catholic Church had always taught that the Bible needed to continue to be interpreted the way it had been interpreted at the time of the Apostles.)
I take the Church teaching a step farther and with the Old Testament go as far back in Rabbinical commentary as possible. So yes, I would agree with you that all interpretation through twenty-first century’s man cultural lens, needs to be tossed out. Like yesterday. True study and understanding of the Bible takes years, decades. It includes the study of ancient history, cultures, and original languages.
And after that we got countless splinter denominations. I wonder what Red would have to say about those who came up with this idea.
So if true study of the Bible takes years and requires the study of ancient languages, history and cultures…aren’t we relying on the priests to interpret it for us? Not many of us can spend years doing that. Oddly, among those who have spent their lives doing exactly what you say must be done, we still see constant disagreement on scripture.
I am reminded of the part of the Bible where God says he is not the author of confusion. Seems he is when it comes to interpreting the Bible. But then again, perhaps that verse was hyperbolic and must be interpreted differently. Perhaps God just doesn’t like confusion?
With all due respect do you think the Catholic Church interprets the Bible the same way it was interpreted at the time of the Apostles?
I see a lot of Catholic practices, words, and positions not in the Bible.
So you believe non- Catholics do? That would mean there was what the apostles did, skip 1500 years, add in translation of the bible across several different languages, then all of a sudden some jack ass German monk has a revelation and a splinter sect is doing what the apostles did. What is the likelihood of that?
Regarding your second paragraph, so, what?
So the bible takes years or decades to understand. Thanks God. Be nice to not have obfuscated everything.
You talk like he wrote and translated it. There are some good truths in it for those who seek them.
Some non-catholics do indeed get it right I do believe. We have divinity schools, biblical scholars, and some of us have studied the scriptures for decades(55 years in my case).
In our church we study the scriptures book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse in our sunday school and wednesday night classes.
As for so what? Should we be practicing things not contained in the Bible? I don’t feel safe doing that sort of thing myself.
I could name any number of things but lets just bring up the pope. Where is that word in the scriptures? Don’t you think the Apostles would have mentioned such a position in their writings? Yet they didn’t.
It’s all man written I agree. I just think it’s a very silly vehicle to “present” yourself as a God.
[quote=“gooddad409, post:149, topic:150”]
Some non-catholics do indeed get it right I do believe. We have divinity schools, biblical scholars, and some of us have studied the scriptures for decades(55 years in my case).[/QUOTE]
Agree to disagree.
I’m willing to bet you use an English translation. Not a single word in your version of the bible was in the original manuscripts that became the bible. Yet that doesn’t seem to bother you at all. What twisted logic do you use to justify that.
Note, all Christian denominations, Catholic, protestant, baptist, pentecostal, etc use the bible to justify their beliefs. And they are all right. The bible is written so vaguely all denominations are supported by it. Arguing amongst themselves is a pointless exercise. But it’s fun to get people riled up about it.
Ask and ye shall receive:
Which further proves my point that the book is a silly way for God to have revealed himself given all of the factions it has caused
These are much more interesting arguments than biblical assertions or vague claims of “spirit”. Each one of those deserve their own threads - and each one requires a pretty big jump to “God is a thinking human like thing as western religions describe”.
How did an inanimate object such as a book cause anything? It can’t. It’s the result of what mankind has done with it.
God was pretty naive to reveal himself via such a divisive channel. Whoopsies?
By who’s authority exactly? In the context of philosophers maybe you are right. But the common person definitely views “God” as a personified object, with thoughts, feelings, intervention, and other human like attributes. Where none of these properties arise out of most of the arguments you linked to. For example, a first cause could simply be a non thinking property of matter/energy. Successfully arguing a first cause and calling it “God” doesn’t warrant the attribution of other properties attributed to “God” - example, being a “loving” object of existence.
[quote=“koushi_shinigami, post:151, topic:150, full:true”]
Care to answer where the pope is found in the scriptures? I noticed you clipped that out of my quote.
p.s. Yes we do indeed study many of the original words(and their meanings) in their original language.
Greek, aremaic, hebrew.
