It appears we are the authors of our own confusion.
Each of us are unique individuals, which means we are all going to have a slightly different perception/understanding of what goes on. We all understand this about one another. We also have the ability of crossing over from unique perspective into misunderstanding and even untruths.
God has always been in our midst, and people have written accounts of their experiences of God in their midst. First we must understand what God was in the midst of–and that means studying history and culture. Further, we need to understand the original languages so we get every nuance possible of what was being said.
The Catholic Church was in existence over three hundred years before the New Testament was compiled. Traditions were in place before the Bible. The literacy rate was not high back then. People passed down traditions, even when they could not read. Have you ever read first editions of novels written hundreds of years ago? The authors didn’t bother with detailing customs people were familiar with back then. Why write down that which is common knowledge?
[quote=“gooddad409, post:160, topic:150”]Care to answer where the pope is found in the scriptures? I noticed you clipped that out of my quote.[/quote]
Letters from both John and Paul, not to mention Jesus in the Gospels, often have them referring to someone not biologically related as children or son. In Rome, the head of the Church came to be affectionately called Papa, later pronounced Pope. We would have to go back nearly two thousand years to inform the people of that time that some modern day humans don’t care for the wording they, our ancestors, came by naturally.
Hmmm, we have established that the Bible cannot be trusted as inerrant. So are we just cafeteria Christians who pick and choose from the Bible what is true and what to follow, discarding the rest? Clearly we all will come to very different opinions on Biblical truths. Some find the ritual of foot washing very important. Others not do much. Some will take literal the verses that God commanded the slaughter of infants. Others think it is a fallible history.
Can you see that for non-Christians as well as Christians it is very confusing? Even if I study for 50 years, my understanding will be at odds with someone else who has studied for 50 years.
What we established is that personal interpretation of the Bible cannot be trusted. It has not been established that the Bible itself cannot be trusted. In reading anything, who is the original author addressing? What point does he wish to make to them?
Right away we can eliminate the idea that the author wanted to establish God as a merciless killer of infants. From there the choice is to research why the massacre of infants–or, ask oneself, “Why do I want to see God as the merciless killer of infants? What do I hope to gain by taking that perspective?”
Learn the author’s motives. Face one’s own motives.
The bible is just a bunch of written down personal interpretations by the writers and the people who compiled the documents. The bible didn’t write itself. Replace your posts with the Koran and I doubt you’d be defending the Koran so extensively
No, you see, now you have to perform psychoanalysis on the authors to understand. And of course be sure to assert that your psychoanalysis is correct and other’s are wrong. Because, after all, the bible doesn’t give any psychoanalysis. Just pick and choose when to apply it, so that it aligns with your beliefs.
I note you also avoided the point I made. Most if not all the words in your English version of the bible were never in the original manuscripts. The word 'Jesus’s for example. Yet you use that word without reservation.
Looking past doing things not in the bible, how do you feel about not doing things that are in the bible? Like the 7 sacraments that Catholics practice. One of them being commanded specifically by Jesus.
You mention you’ve studied the bible for 55 years. Its that a long time? The Catholic church has been collectively studying it for close to 2000 years. Why should I give more credence to your concerns after such a short time of individual study?
The Catholic church also has"divinity schools", I think they are called seminaries and biblical scholars as well.
There is a good chance that some of their seminaries have been in existence and studying and teaching the bible longer that your denomination has been around. What makes yours better than theirs?
I seek the truth. The Bible clearly says that God commanded the death of the infants. You seem to be questioning whether the author of that section of the Bible told the truth. Am I understanding that correctly? Do you believe God didn’t command the death of infants?
God’s love is an astonishing, amazing, jaw-dropping experience. Sure, after that, I could have gone back to the story of the Amalekites and proclaimed Samuel and the Israelites had it all wrong. Instead, I “listened” to them. Go back, study the laws and promises given to them. Add a little politics (pure survival for them) and it is very easy to see how Samuel determined God’s will, God’s commands. God had chosen a people to be set apart, and Samuel was watching Saul coming to peace terms with the conquered–a peace where the conquered and the Jews would co-mingle.
Samuel foresaw what would happen in such an event. The Jews would adopt the easier ways of foreigners and forget God–just as they had so easily forgotten Him in the desert when they forsook Him for a golden calf. Of course the author of that section told the truth, and concisely presented the facts. I am saying in Biblical accounts when God actually appeared, there is an account of exactly how it occurred. When it is written “God commanded” then we see priests praying (probably even discussing the matter among themselves much the way Justices discuss the Constitution) and then presenting what God Himself would command.
I wouldDer why God didn’t reveal himself to these people in the same way he revealed himself to Moses; so that he could soften their hearts. Instead, he orders his children to murder a bunch of innocents.
I mean, it wouldn’t have been beyond gods power to change their hearts and minds so that they too would have a chance to worship the real god. Right? I guess those peoples deserved hell for being born in the wrong family.
So the author told the truth of how God commanded the slaughter of innocent children? Put aside the rationale for the moment, we can get back to that. Do you believe that God commanded the slaughter of children? A simple yes or no will suffice. I’m trying to get clarity here. We can then talk about rationales.
In other words you acknowledge the scriptures do not mention a pope. The Apostles were quite good at putting down what needed to be put down and the pope is not mentioned.
That is just the tip of the ice berg actually. There are a great many catholic beliefs and practices not authorized by the scriptures.
Wow! Sounds like what the priest on a catholic tv program said one day. “You aren’t suppose to read the Bible. Let us read it and tell you what it means”.
That opposes Biblical teaching that urges everyone to study the scriptures. Kind of handy if you don’t follow the scriptures very closely though i suppose.
I believe it is unlikely God would give such a command. If Samuel did understand his prayer insights correctly, then I trust the Rabbis who say it was a matter of God’s justice and protection of His people.
