What qualifications are needed to read the Bible?

[PCResources]

<< PCResources---I don't think you have to worry about anyone in this thread trying to convert you. So rest assured. Thanks for that completely useless batman post. >>



Yup, your post was informative and stated your opinion, not all catholics are the same as you, i stated what i felt by using the Batman anology that i used...

Your post expressed nothing but your opinion and neither did mine, but that is what we are both here for, right, to discuss and express our opinions...

Your post is as useless as mine from that standing point..

Patrick

 

[Elita1]

PCresources, I was stating the facts I know about church teaching, and in doing so, did not need to resort to poor analogies to belittle other's standpoints.

Your post was an opinion and it was useless. Thanks for proving it, again.

My posts are useless to YOU because you don't care to hear anything remotely religious.

UG: how on earth would it suit &quot;my purpose&quot;? Many here are very familiar with your views on the subject.
You merely posted to be insulting and I called you on it.

 

[bandXtrb]

<<The sun is shining, the women are pretty>>

I have no religious experience, but I can tell you that the above statements are true.

 

[FireGal]

The bible was written for all mankind to read.
It was written for so that people way know whom our creator is, what he is offering and what he expects in return.

So to answer what qualifications are needed. What is needed is a desire to gain knowledge.

 

[UG]

Elita1

<<...you merely posted to be insulting...>>

I posted to point out the fact that 'critical intelligence' was not included on Stark's list as being important to reading the bible (and to placing it in proper perspective).

It was you who felt insulted by someone else feeling critical thinking was important to comprehension.

[edit]Why should one be more insulted by the pointing out of the omission and not more so by the omission itself?[/edit]

 

[meister]

I think believers are constantly in a strait between two opposite points. One faith, the other critical thinking that is based upon knowing things as in the scientific method. (this is not saying that believers find that their faith has no bases)

I find for myself critical thinking brings me to an end, when I choose faith, then other times critical thinking enriches the faith I already have choosen.

Mark

 

[PCResources]

<< PCresources, I was stating the facts I know about church teaching, and in doing so, did not need to resort to poor analogies to belittle other's standpoints. >>



Ok, then we have gotten that far, why don't you write the mod's and ask them to ban opinions on this board as you think that they are all useless, or is it just opinions that you do not agree with that are useless?



<< My posts are useless to YOU because you don't care to hear anything remotely religious. >>



And my posts are useless to YOU because you don't care to hear anything that you do not agree with when it comes to your faith.

You have a problem with anyone who does not think that the bible is a collection of true stories, i called it a bunch of stories (actually, i think it is more like a collection of myths, but i wanted to be nice) and that is what i think that it is, just like Batman, i could have chosen another comic or book to compare it with, but why should i? I think everyone got my point, obviously you did.

Patrick

 

[BMdoobieW]

<< What qualifications are needed to read the Bible? >>


A basic understanding of the english language and a good Artscroll Chumash. It helps to know hebrew, but with Artscroll's translation, you can get by.

 

[DRDEATH]

RossGR,
Now the Catholics pretty much created the bible and for 500-600 years kept

very close wraps on it.

There enlighs the problem with the early church. Christianity is souly based on the BIBLE. Had the people had access to the Bible, the (so-called) Preists would have not gotten away with near the evil they did get away with back then.

For instance The fact they used to make people say there Christian our they would kill them would have never happened. Because, the people that read the Bible would have known that was not what God was all about at all.

 

[Vikaden]

<< What qualifications are needed to read the Bible? >>



boredom?

 

[huanaku]

The New Testament was written by Catholics though, because that's what early Christians were

Um, didn't Catholics take up the name &quot;catholic&quot; or &quot;catholicism&quot; until 150 ad or so. Catholic is a greek term meaning universal, and wasn't mentioned in early writings as a reference to the church until about 110 or so. Catholicism then developed with many creeds and articles to better define the incorporated beliefs. (If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'd like to learn)

 

[DRDEATH]

apoppin,


The Catholic Church came into existance hundreds of years after the Bible was completed (despite their claims).

It is true that the Catholic Church attempted to keep the common people from reading it but many translators - at the risk of their lives (and torture) and despite the Church's opposition - translated it into the languages of the common people. The Church wanted to keep it in Latin so only the Clergy could intrepret it (keeping power over the people).

Only literacy is required to read the Bible. It was written for common people. Get a copy in modern English and read it for yourself and think for yourself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said Man,
(From what I have Heard) The Roman Catholic Church came about when a large percentage of the Romans... Were Puting their faith in GOD instead of the cesear/king. Dispite their best efforts to keep them worshiping the King (our whoever)... bye (Im assuming) Death/Imprisonment/torture/ect.

So the cecear/king... decide to make it work to his advantage. Roman Catholic Kind of Incorperated the government into it... (atleast back then) I dont know if it still is, I am not a Roman Catholic. But I am Christian.

 

[meister]

The christian tradition split in 1054 AD.

The Roman leadership, led by the papacy, chose the word 'catholic' meaning 'universal' to describe the church. Of course this word was used in previous centuries, but usually only in teaching and dogma, not as an official characterization.

The Eastern church, the Greek Orthodox, means'correct or right'.

Mark

 

[bandXtrb]

<<Get a copy in modern English and read it for yourself and think for yourself. >>

I think what turned me off to reading the Bible is that the writing style is unusual...It's old fashioned (old english or something?), kind of like Shakespeare style. Not easy to just pick it up and start reading.

 

[RossGr]

Wow! this has turned it to a very good thread, I finally got a chance to read it all.

Elita1 &amp; Optimus, I got my impression of a lay person god vs a priest's god from a Unitarian Minister who was attempting to expain to me where the &quot;Old man in a white robe&quot; god head came from. This he felt was the simplified image fed to the &quot;flock&quot; while the priests maintained a deeper and less humanized concept. I have been made aware of the less litteral Catholic interpetation by reading yours and Optimus' posting here. That is what had got me wondering if the Catholic's had a inside track on the interpetation. Even though Optimus assures me there is no hidden knowledge I am still wondering. Thanks again for your insiteful posts.

For the various fundamentalist:
I am still very concerned with the broad range of interpetations the result from individuals reading the bible then thinking they have the word straight from god. Most of you have little or no knowledge of the history of the book or the church, yet seem eager to condem any who do not share your views to hell. This even though your concepts of god, heaven and hell are straight out of a childs sunday school class. With no evidence of study or true contemplation on your part.

To the various atheist who responded:
I fully expected to get your comments, they are much as I could have predicted and frankly I agree with many.

 

[Anaconda]

you gotta be able to friggin read

 

[Stark]

<< However, missing from the list was Critical Intelligence, obviously an unnecessary commodity. >>


Not unnecessary, but a critical dissection of the material is not on my top five list. I've heard very smart people rip apart every chapter in the Bible. They seem to get far less out of the experience than those who read with an open mind and heart.

Does someone need to know which verses the J,E,D, or P sources wrote in the Penteteuch? Or attempt to figure out the sources of the Synoptic gospels (was there a Q or not?). Must they also read Josephus, the Agrapha, and other pagan and Jewish writings in order to get value and meaning out of the Bible? Or by critical intelligence, do you mean engaging in form criticism or redaction criticism?

Because I've done all those things, and I can honestly say they are not necessary for rich and fulfilling Bible study.



<< I'm very interested in what you said here.
Where and on what was Peter corrected by Paul?
How do you know the apostles did not consider Peter their leader? >>


Galatians 2:


<< 6 And the leaders of the church who were there had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.) 7 They saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the Good News to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. 8 For the same God who worked through Peter for the benefit of the Jews worked through me for the benefit of the Gentiles. 9 In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews. 10 The only thing they suggested was that we remember to help the poor, and I have certainly been eager to do that.

11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him publicly, speaking strongly against what he was doing, for it was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who don't bother with circumcision. But afterward, when some Jewish friends of James came, Peter wouldn't eat with the Gentiles anymore because he was afraid of what these legalists would say. 13 Then the other Jewish Christians followed Peter's hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was influenced to join them in their hypocrisy. 14 When I saw that they were not following the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter in front of all the others, &quot;Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you trying to make these Gentiles obey the Jewish laws you abandoned? 15 You and I are Jews by birth, not 'sinners' like the Gentiles. 16 And yet we Jewish Christians know that we become right with God, not by doing what the law commands, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be accepted by God because of our faith in Christ ? and not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be saved by obeying the law.&quot; 17 But what if we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then find out that we are still sinners? Has Christ led us into sin? Of course not! 18 Rather, I make myself guilty if I rebuild the old system I already tore down. 19 For when I tried to keep the law, I realized I could never earn God's approval. So I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ. 20 I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I am not one of those who treats the grace of God as meaningless. For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then there was no need for Christ to die.&quot; >>



It is generally accepted that James, the Brother of the Lord was the leader of the Jerusalem church in the first century. Peter was an important figure in the early church, but not the outright leader. He initially accepted Paul's movement to spread Christ's gospel to the pagan/gentile population of Asia Minor, but later abandoned that position under pressure from the Jerusalem church who wanted to focus their ministry entirely on Jewish Christians.

Paul's ministry seemed to be focused on fulfilling Christ's Great Commission to &quot;Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere&quot; (Mk 16:15), while the Jerusalem church was focused on Jesus' earlier order as captured in Matthew 10: &quot;5 Jesus sent the twelve disciples out with these instructions: &quot;Don't go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, 6 but only to the people of Israel ? God's lost sheep. 7 Go and announce to them that the Kingdom of Heaven is near.&quot;

Of all the Apostles and Saints, Paul's efforts were the principal reason Christianity spread to Rome, and throughout the world. If not for him, Christianity may well have died in 70 AD with the fall of Jerusalem.

At least, I think that's what apoppin was talking about.

 

[apoppin]

Aloha. Finally back. (And now it's late and I won't be up much longer)



<< How could you not see that I am giving the history of why the Church had the position they did? >>


Dually, I stand by my statements to you. I made a statement that you disagreed with, you made another one (as if it was your own) and I called you on it without flaming you yet you flamed me by calling me an idiot for not reading your mind instead of what you actually wrote.

If you have any doubts reread your posts and my answers to them.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________


<< I'm very interested in what you said here.
Where and on what was Peter corrected by Paul?
How do you know the apostles did not consider Peter their leader?

Sincerely not trying to bait/flame you I am honestly curious to find out.>>

Elita1, first of all the Catholic Church bases much of their belief on the preeminence of Peter on Matthew 16:18 where Jesus says &quot;you are Peter and on this rock mass I will build my congregation.&quot; Peter is the masculine petros and rock mass is the feminine gender petra. The distinction is made clear by all but Catholic Bible translators.

That the disciples also did not understand that Peter was the leader (rock mass or &quot;Pope&quot is made clear by their later dispute over &quot;which one was the greatest among them&quot; (Mark 9:33-35 and Luke 22:24-26). In fact St. Augustine of the 4th century changed his belief that the rock mass was Christ, not Peter.

Peter was prominent among the early Church but not foremost as shown when the apostles &quot;dispatched Peter and John&quot; to Samaria (Acts 8:14).

Read Galations 2:11-14 where Paul states he found it necessary to reprove Peter (Cephas) &quot;face to face, before them all.&quot;

EDIT: Stark, quoted it very nicely. I just got to his post.

Peter wrote his two letter from Babylon, not Rome. Paul preached in Rome, not Peter.

 

[Elledan]

The bible lacks an important bit of information which is known in many (East) Asian religions. The mind/body relation. The mind has the ability to influence the body and the body has the ability to influence the mind. If you've a strong will, you can gain almost total control over your body.

I wonder why this fact is only known in East-Asian religions.

 

[thraashman]

Ok. I stopped reading about half-way through this thread. My comments on some things being said.

Some are saying it takes a closed-minded person to read the Bible.
Some are saying it takes and open-minded person, and a closed-minded person NOT to read the Bible.

Simple thing here actually BOTH views are wrong. It takes a closed-minded person to ONLY read the Bible, or to refuse to read it altogether. An open-minded person looks at both sides, or rather all sides to a concept. A close-minded person would read the Bible and refuse to read or consider Origin of Species or the Koran. And open-minded person reads all and seriously considers possible truths of each and every text.




Also whoever said Jesus would have spoken common Greek, actually that area of the world would have spoken Aramaic.



One more thing. Stop calling them Catholics OR christians. Catholics ARE christians, they aren't seperate. If you wanna seperate Catholicism from the rest of christianity, say catholics and protestans.

 

[apoppin]

Actually the Bible warns against it.

It urges believers to put trust in God instead of onesself. It also warns agains &quot;magic&quot; or that tapping into superhuman energies (which it claims are from the Devil).

So it doesn't really ignore it. It just warns against &quot;false religion&quot;. The Bible also has no relationship with beliefs of attaining &quot;zen&quot; or beliefs in reincarnation. These beliefs (or the kernal of many of these beliefs) originated in lands that the Israelites had trade with.

 

[RossGr]

Elledan, Very true, Christianity seem to have gone to the othre extreme, seperating the mind and spirit from the body.

I tend to believe that Christ knew and understood the relationship, he just did not have sufficient time with his diciples to pass the knowledge along. I feel that much of his teachings have been lost, his name was used and abused by Paul who propagated his own take on religon. How much of the true message of Christ made it into the bible?

It is incrediable that Christianity could have survived this long if there were no basis. The question I have is, did the true basis of the relgion make it into the bible or was it handed down in some other form. As has been pointed out in this thread the hierarchy of the priesthood has been with the church from the very beginning. This seems to me to be the perfect method of holding portions of the teachings to higher levels of the priesthood. Then again perhaps I am just caught up in conspirisy theorys.

I am still trying to understand that if the bible is the essence of the Christian god how come it can be read in so many different ways. My current conclusion is that it is not a source absolute knowledge and must be read with a great deal of care. I think that many of the fundametalist cults are blowing smoke, simplily pushing evangelism in order to enrich the coffers of their particlar church.

 

[apoppin]

<< Also whoever said Jesus would have spoken common Greek, actually that area of the world would have spoken Aramaic. >>



Jesus and his disciples spoke Koine Greek which was the common (or international) tongue of their day. No doubt they would have also spoken Hebrew (he read from the scrolls of Moses in the Synagogue) and Aramaic.

However, the entire New Testament was written in Greek (although ALL the writers were Jewish).

EDIT: How influential Greek was as a language can be seen by noting that the decrees of the Imperial Govenors and the Roman Senate of Jesus' day were translated into Koine Greek for distribution throught the entire Roman Empire.

 

[p0tempkin]

Don't believe everything you read, sonny.

 

[apoppin]

<< As has been pointed out in this thread the hierarchy of the priesthood has been with the church from the very beginning. >>



No, in the primitive Christian Church, ALL were to be teachers and preachers. There was no clergy/laity class distinctions until the third century.

Jesus is quoted as saying &quot;Do not be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover do not call anyone your father on earth for one is your father, the Heavenly One. Neither be called 'leader', for your Leader is one the Christ.&quot; (Matthew 23:8-10)