What qualifications are needed to read the Bible?

[RossGr]

Apopping you and stark seem to be the fundamentalis reps here but I am getting a different picture from the two of you. Clearly the early disciples formed a hierarchy of the church.

Your posts are a perfect example of my point. I still doubt that you have the knowledge necessary to garner the true meanings of the texts. You can read them at a surface level and get one message but there can be other meanings which you are not privy to. It is those interpetations which would have been kept within the inner circle.

 

[apoppin]

<< Your posts are a perfect example of my point. I still doubt that you have the knowledge necessary to garner the true meanings of the texts. You can read them at a surface level and get one message but there can be other meanings which you are not privy to. It is those interpetations which would have been kept within the inner circle. >>



I'll let Jesus' words respond to you at Matthew 11:25: &quot;I publically praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.&quot;

 

[apoppin]

It's time for me to head to work. So I'll leave you with a further thought at 1 Timothy 4:1-3 (quoted from the Catholic Douay Bible):


<< Now the Spirit manifestly sayeth, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies of hypocrisy and having their conscience seared, Forbidding to mary, to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful >>

.

The pomp of the Catholic Church contrasts with the life of simplicity that Jesus and his early disciples lived. Read history. Read the Bible. Then decide for yourself is there is an &quot;inner circle&quot; privy to the truth as presented in the Bible.

 

[AaronP]

a gut full of fried cheese curds helps.

 

[Optimus]

<< For instance The fact they used to make people say there Christian our they would kill them would have never happened. >>


DrDeath: BWahahahahahahaha! Oh come on - you're just making stuff up for fun, right? You don't seriously believe that, do you? Priests hunting down non-christians and killing them? You've got it backwards my friend. The Catholic Church is full of priests, missionaries , and others who died for saying they were Christian.
Killer priests... sheesh. :disgust:

RossGR: Glad to help. It is the very chaotic openess of personal translation fo scripture that leads me to believe that God could not expect everyone to interpret the Bible themselves and come up with the right message. With the vast differences among the Protestant denominations, these differences are apparent.

Unfortuantely what you have tapped into here is an old and bitter battle between Protestants and Catholics. We differ on much and there is actually much anger towards the Catholic Church from many protestants.

One of the points we differ on, as you can see from several posts, is interpreting the actions/words of the early Church. Peter, Paul, Petros and Petra, hierarchy... etc. We quote eerily similar Biblical texts, but each translation different. We don't share the same translation or interpretation and so disagree on much (as you can see from Apoppin's vs Elita/My posts).

The rift between Catholics and Protestants is deep and complex and one I can't even begin to tackle here.

Apoppin: Your posts are so familiar from the many, many debates I've had with Chrisitans and although I'd love to engage the debate, I don't think this is the right place for it. Suffice it to say, I hold different beleifs on Peter, Paul, and the early Church than you.
But I think there is so much animosity towards both Catholics and Christians here that bringing up our differences is only likely to cause difficulties. Please do PM me for any discussion!

 

[Optimus]

<< And open-minded person reads all and seriously considers possible truths of each and every text. >>



EXACTLY! Well said!

 

[JupiterJones]

Test

 

[apoppin]

<< Your posts are so familiar from the many, many debates I've had with Chrisitans and although I'd love to engage the debate, I don't think this is the right place for it. Suffice it to say, I hold different beleifs on Peter, Paul, and the early Church than you. >>



Well, where is the &quot;right&quot; place? The ridiculers will always ridicule (2 Peter 3:3,4) - even more so today, according to the scripture. I just say, ignore them.

The people searching for Bible truth will find it if they put forth effort. Why hide our differences? The entire world is aware of them.


Anyway, the only qualification needed to read the Bible is LITERACY. And it can be reads to an illiterate or blind person. Understanding is another matter.

 

[Optimus]

Apoppin: Yes but it isn't the ridiculers I worry about. For every 1 post in a thread there are likely 20 people who just lurk/read. If someone is undecided or interested then internal fighing among Chrisitans is just going to put them off. I speak from past experiences, believe me!
The proper place would be PM for you and I, or email. For a broader discussion we could find a Chrisitan/Catholic Forum where that kind of discussion would be more understood by observers.



<< Anyway, the only qualification needed to read the Bible is LITERACY. And it can be reads to an illiterate or blind person. Understanding is another matter. >>



Nothing but full agreement there!

 

[apoppin]

<< then internal fighing among Chrisitans is just going to put them off. >>



Well, I really don't agree with that. Someone really searching for truth needs all the facts.

It also depends on whether you believe in religious interfaith or not.

Anyway, i won't be able to post till tonight since I am NOW (officially) late for work.

You're safe for now.


j/k

 

[JupiterJones]

People often speak of how there are so many interpretations of what the Bible says that no one can claim to be right. The real problem is the methodology used to interpret the Bible, and the weight placed on scripture. We can't even agree what the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution says (less than 30 words), and yet we are surprised that people disagree as to what the Bible says. Groups that agree as to methodology have very little difference of opinion as to what the Bible teaches.
There are four sources of authority: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason. The order in which you place these sources of authority makes a big difference as to what you claim concering spiritual truth. The Roman Church tends to place Tradition and Experience above Scripture. Many Christians place Tradition above Scripture. Holiness type churches place Experience above Scripture. Evangelical churches tend to place Scripture at the top, while Fundamentalist place Tradition above Scripture.
The question concerned who was qualified to read scripture. Anyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit is qualified. The Bible itself teaches that Scripture will be considered foolishness by the unbeliever.

Don

 

[Athanasius]

RossGr:

What is the purpose of the Bible? Or are there multiple purposes?

I think the main purpose of the Bible is to empower an individual to walk in the fulness of the Spirit that comes through Christ. It's main purpose is devotional and individual, not corporate and doctrinal.

If the Bible's main purpose was doctrinal, it would be a different type of book. It would have treatises about the nature of God, to nature of Christ, the time and manner in which Christians should practice the ordinances/sacraments of the faith, etc.

But the Bible was not written that way. The Old testament is not &quot;doctrinal&quot; at all, and even the New testament, for the most part, addresses doctrine in a more practical sense. Different individual Christian local churches struggled with different issues and words were written to help them live out their faith and overcome these issues and walk in by the power of the Spirit rather than rely merely upon their own resources.

The Bible itself says that that its purpose is not doctrinal in the academic sense that we view such things today. 2 Timothy 3:17 says that the purpose of Scripture is &quot;so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.&quot; (NIV)

This aspect of the Bible's purpose requires no particular skill or training to achieve. It is a spiritual work that is not contingent upon anything except the diligence and heart of the disciple and the untraceable workings of the Spirit. It requires no formal training, although it does require that one have a copy of the Bible in a language that one speaks. Hence, such a one is naive (NOT stupid) and somewhat at the mercy of the translators and is easily victimized by a bad translation or an unscrupulous teacher.

Still, this aspect of the Bible is what is dearest to God. He cares much more about the heart than the head. Jesus himself had no formal training, yet he amazed people by what he taught. See John 7:15-17:

<< The Jews were amazed and asked, &quot;how did this man get such learning without having studied?&quot;
Jesus answered: &quot;My teaching is not my own. It comes from Him who sent me. If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.&quot; >>



So, it is the heartfelt choice to do the Father's will, not the academic instructions of the Seminary elite, that most grants an understanding of God through reading the Bible.

Of course, the Bible does establish doctrine as a secondary purpose. And this doctrine is wrapped in thousands of years of church history that can make even the most academically gifted person stagger. But the the core issues of the Christian faith are more easily discerned today than at any time in the past fifteen hundred years. We have many thousands of Greek manuscripts available to perform a level of critical study of the New Testament that no other ancient document has ever been subjected to. We have a tremedous amount of writings available from pre-Nicea (325 A.D.) Christians who wrote at a time when Christianity was a despised and persecuted religion, not a political juggernaut. From these early Christians alone (Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, Tertullian, Origen, and on and on) we can recreate virtually the entire New Testament without even having a New testament manuscript. For example, Tatian wrote the &quot;Diatesseron,&quot; a harmony of the four Gospels, in about 140 A.D. This shows that the same four Gospel accounts that we have today were widely circulated and accepted by Christians 180 years before the Church had any political power to censor or supposedly alter documents.


To work through these issues takes diligence and effort, but a little history, a little Greek, and a willingness to read the ante-Nicene Fathers for oneself can go a long way. Then one is in a postion to evalute what the &quot;Priesthood&quot; or the &quot;Seminary Elite&quot; says represents core Christian doctrine.

Still, doctrine pales in comparison to the personal experience of divine grace, even though core, accurate doctrine facilitates the experience of divine grace.

 

[jaydee]

Athanasius said it all.

 

[technogeeky]

I'm only an beginning European historian, however, I can provide this:

Who ever is saying that Latin is the language of politics, gov't, etc is correct - but think of the reason. After the fall of the Roman and Byzantine empires, all you had left for orginization was the church itself - and their language is Latin. This existed until early country developing in the 1200's when the vernacular (local) language appeard. With the advent of the printing press, the bible was able to be translated and widely distributed.

As for why the bible was in Latin - there could be countless reasons. Perhaps it was because the church did not want to give commoners the power to question them. Ignorance is bliss for the church, and it always has been. Perhaps it is because they needed to preserve the bible - that DOES make sense, and it's a viewpoint *I've* never heard. That is a very good hypothesis.

I'm not a very religious person, but I am amazed every day at the bickering and fighiting between diffrent churches who disagree on so many levels, while all retaining the principle of faith and belief.

Just my 2cents.

-tg

 

[jaydee]

technogeeky


<< Who ever is saying that Latin is the language of politics, gov't, etc is correct - but think of the reason. After the fall of the Roman and Byzantine empires, all you had left for orginization was the church itself - and their language is Latin. This existed until early country developing in the 1200's when the vernacular (local) language appeard. With the advent of the printing press, the bible was able to be translated and widely distributed. >>


The church of the Byzantine empire though was Eastern Othodox which rarely used the Bible at all. The assertion of the Roman empire though is correct. Being a European historian (something I'll prolly major or minor in college 14 months from now), when exactly was the Gutenburg printing press invented? I thought it was in the 17th century but I may be incorrect.


<< As for why the bible was in Latin - there could be countless reasons. Perhaps it was because the church did not want to give commoners the power to question them. Ignorance is bliss for the church, and it always has been. Perhaps it is because they needed to preserve the bible - that DOES make sense, and it's a viewpoint *I've* never heard. That is a very good hypothesis. >>


This concept can be applied to so many arguements its not funny. Just because it can for some people doesn't rule out the possiblity that it can be true.



<< I'm not a very religious person, but I am amazed every day at the bickering and fighiting between diffrent churches who disagree on so many levels, while all retaining the principle of faith and belief. >>


I'm not a politician, but there are more conservative/liberal, republican/democrat bickering, and fighting every week in these forums than religious ones, so by that thought, (I don't know if you were going to go this far but I will) is there no one right view to be held politically?

 

[RossGr]

In my mind this thread is about the Catholic/Protestant division. Yes, Optimus who are correct for me this sibling bickering serves to push me further from the Christian family. I have grown up as a sort of Protestant ?atheist?, feeling that the whole god concept of Christ is in error and that the single greatest Christian evil was the Pope/Catholic church. Over the years though I have mentally dropped the Pope from that greatest evil, Why? Because in my life I have never seen or heard of him doing anything that deserved the title. Historically there have been &quot;Bad&quot; Popes that have abused their position, that is not true today, I am capable of changing my views given good evidence. So I am now evolving into a sort of Catholic ?atheist? who views the Fundamentalist/evangelist as the &quot;Greatest evil&quot; .

Do not any of you who are quoting the bible at me find in the least ironic that in a thread where I am doubting your qualifications to interpret the bible all you can do is quote the bible.~^

The writers of the new testament were not aware of the fact that they were writing the bible, the bible is a committee ?written? text. The various works were selected by men at a point in the churches history where it was well established and needed to codify its beliefs. I am even more convinced then ever that the context and intend of the various works was laid out by the committee. The modern fundamentalist interpretations are made without this background, only the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches have this understanding.

 

[jaydee]

<< The writers of the new testament were not aware of the fact that they were writing the bible, the bible is a committee ?written? text. The various works were selected by men at a point in the churches history where it was well established and needed to codify its beliefs. I am even more convinced then ever that the context and intend of the various works was laid out by the committee. The modern fundamentalist interpretations are made without this background, only the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches have this understanding. >>


I don't understand this 'commitee' theory. So is what you're trying to say is that authors such as Paul did not write his 12 or 13 books of the Bible in the days of the early church? All New Testament works were written 15th century or so by a select number of catholics who kept it in latin to keep other people from interpreting it? I'm curious if this is your thought, as it appears from the above statement.

 

[RossGr]

NO the new testament was not written with that purpose in mind, a council was declared around 1000AD by the church to SELECT the works which would form the bible. Various works were discussed and essentially voted on by the council members for worthiness of inclusion. The examined works were surviving letters and other such works which had been written at different times in the early days of the church. My source for this version of history is Edward Gibons ?Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? . I read this about 20yrs ago so the dates and names are pretty fuzzy in my mind but the general outline is clear.

 

[meister]

The books of the bible as they are compiled today have been accepted since around 300 AD.

Way earlier than 1000 AD. Early fathers recognized huge controversy's in the church (much like today, but with subtle differences)

As the faith spread and books were written, many struggled to bring harmony and decide what was truly inspired, and what was just good reading.

If you need details, I'll go into it.

Mark

 

[meister]

by the way, Gibbons Rise and Fall is a masterpiece---however today it has been examined more detailed and his presuppositions and own animus towards christianity has been brought to light. Although for its time was very good.

Mark

 

[RossGr]

I am sure that many of works were accepted BY SOME as early 300ad, but the acceptance was not universal at that point in time they could not even agree on the nature of christ, that issue was not &quot;resolved&quot; until his deification by Constitine around 300 - 400 AD. This major issue was resolved as means of keeping the peace rather then through convincing theological arguments. My beliefs are based on the existence of these early Unitarians and their persistence through history, including Gibbon and major players among the US founding fathers.

I am aware of the anti-Catholic bias of Gibbon, he was a Unitarian after all, I feel that his basic outline is accurate though.

 

[Davegod75]

none...anyone can read it. I would actually reccommend everyone read it.

 

[Stark]

<< Apopping you and stark seem to be the fundamentalis reps >>


I put the fun in fundamentalism!


<< In my mind this thread is about the Catholic/Protestant division. >>


Well, when you start a thread with the premise that &quot;only the Catholics have the knowledge necessary to read the bible correctly,&quot; what do you expect?


<< this sibling bickering serves to push me further from the Christian family >>


No, it just gives you an excuse for rejecting what Christ did for you on the cross.


<< I have grown up as a sort of Protestant ?atheist?... I am now evolving into a sort of Catholic ?atheist...? I am capable of changing my views given good evidence. >>


According to Christ, the greatest evil is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 12:32
Anyone who blasphemes against me, the Son of Man, can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.
Claiming that there is no holy spirit (which I assume is your stance as an atheist), probably won't go to far when you finally stand before God in judgement. But there is no God, so don't sweat it. :Q


<< Do not any of you who are quoting the bible at me find in the least ironic that in a thread where I am doubting your qualifications to interpret the bible all you can do is quote the bible.~^ >>


Not really. All it shows is that you asked a question and didn't want to hear any answer other than your own. Normally that is the behavior of a troll, not particularly unique or special in religious threads like this. Thanks for clearing things up.

 

[UG]

{b]Stark[/b] said:

<<...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...>>

<<...Or by critical intelligence, do you mean engaging in form criticism or redaction criticism?...>>

What are an 'open mind' and an 'open heart'? Is a skeptical mind by contrarian definition incapable of being 'open' to possibilities, or just certain popular possibilities? What is 'heart' if not an organ? An irrational emotion? Why is a rationalist to be vilified for not subscribing to irrationalism wholesale? Why is 'critical dissection' anethema to the faith-based 'open mind' and the skeptic of faith-based world views automatically worthy of the faithful's ridicule for innate 'close mindedness'?

Skepticism is about Caveat Emptor: open mindedness is not soley the province of the irrationalist...

<<...Do not any of you who are quoting the bible at me find in the least ironic that in a thread where I am doubting your qualifications to interpret the bible all you can do is quote the bible...>>> (RossGr)

And some irrationalists do it better than others.

-------
Critical Intelligence == Skeptical Thinking: the sieve that works to isolate the real from the apparently real in the flow of all possible forms of information through the 'open mind'.

The primary worth of a mind should not be how big a heart-felt, open-ended tube it can be but rather more importantly how productive it is at harvesting real information from the blow-through.

 

[DRDEATH]

Anahiem, Harvest 2001. Over 150,000 people came... Over 12,000 Came to Christ(That weren't Christians already when they got there).

Comming to Christ is only the first step to Christianity. Living (Bye Gods Grace) The way the BIBLE says is the second.