Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Free
“An†authoritative Bible interpreter is just as likely to be wrong as many.?â€
Precisely. An interpretation really is of no value to anyone but the interpreter. The product of an interpretation is just a personal opinion. And just as with any other written document, an interpretation really has nothing to do with what the Bible actually is saying.
Note the differences between the interpretations of the American constitution in the first fifty years of American history and the interpretations of it today. Which interpretations are more correct? The modern interpreters claim to follow the whole of the two centuries of previous interpretations. The Constitution has only one meaning. Interpretation changes the meaning. The idea of a Judicial system that interprets the Constitution seems to be rational. But the practice tells the tale in the end.
A written document is only of any real value if it always means what it says, if it always means the same thing. But written documents have no life of their own. The author of the document is the life of the document so long as he lives. When that author dies, the life of the document becomes the interpreters of the document. An interpretation is only an opinion as to what the document means. The author is no longer available to interpret his own document.
It’s true that Christianity has for the most part considered both the writers and the author to be the same, and thus gave credence to their practice of interpretation because the writers are dead and can no longer interpret their own writings. I believe the author of the Bible still lives. The human writers are dead, but the supernatural author is alive. The human writers were not the author of the Bible. They were guided in what they wrote by the Spirit of God. If you want to equate that with automatic writing, the truth of the matter is clear.
If the writers were in any way authors of the Bible, then inspiration is like poetical inspiration. Which is how the liberals view the matter. They had certain experiences that they interpreted to be experiences of God. The nature of their real experiences we can’t say for sure because they are dead. We can only understand and apply their writings in a personal way according to our interpretations. Since the writers of the Bible are dead, that would be for the interpreters to decide. And a historically based community such as Catholicism would be more likely to get it right than the individual interpreters of Protestantism, in my opinion. Because that would truly be taking into consideration 2000 years of historical interpretations.
“And just what is it that makes one “an authoritative Bible interpreterâ€? â€
The Orthodox and Catholics claim a historical basis for their authority. This authority was passed to the Apostles and through them to the Church. Jesus is the foundation of the one universal Church that has existed historically for two millennia. It is that Church that is the one and only authoritative Bible interpreter. Tradition is the historic development of the understanding of the reality initially portrayed in the Bible. The Orthodox only recognizes the development that took place in the first millennia, while the Catholics recognize a development that continues in the West to the present day.
On the surface that makes sense. There is an obvious authoritative connection between Christ and the Apostles. But as Protestants rightly point out, there is no such connection between the Apostles and the “Apostolic Succession†that follows. Such a connection is just an interpretation.
Protestant authoritative interpreters claim they have Apostolic authority through the authority of the Bible alone. But eventually I realized that too is just an interpretation.
And you’re not the only Protestant to invoke 2000 years of Christian scholarship. But it is Catholic scholarship, not Protestant. Protestant scholarship is only a few hundred years old, a scholarship that has developmentally led into a diversity of understandings of the Bible because of the underlying idea of Protestantism that individual interpretations have value, even to being authoritative in their own right.
“you have provided no persuasive argument that only Jesus can interpret the Bible whereas I have provided much Scripture. And indeed you will not be able to do so as that idea is nowhere to be found in Scripture and even denies God having given teachers to the church.â€
The Lordship of Jesus Christ should be persuasive enough. How many Lords do you think there are? When we interpret the Bible we declare ourselves Lord, over God and over Jesus Christ. As if we know better than the source as to what the Bible means. When the interpretations take on the nature of authority, the interpreter becomes a Lord to their followers. And the community that follows that Lord becomes nothing more than a man-made religion that claims the authority of Jesus Christ for itself. That’s what Christian denominations are. Usurpers of the Lordship of Christ. I am a former Christian because I realized that to be true.
“Bible teachers†are so important in Protestantism as to be emphasized. As the Eucharist or Lord’s Table is emphasized in Catholicism. But there’s a big difference between the Spiritual gift of teaching that teaches what Jesus teaches and the Protestant Bible teacher who teaches according to personal or Traditional interpretations of the Bible.
And if you happen to be one who thinks the Spiritual “gifts†ceased after the first century, you have no ground to believe in the existence of Bible teachers today, other than Protestant Tradition.
“And yet, despite having mentioned it several times, you have not dealt with my argument that everyone who has come in to these forums and said something along the lines of “all we have to do is read the Bible and believe it,†or “just let Jesus or the Holy Spirit tell you,†have all differed in their beliefs from each other at certain points and from what is considered orthodox Christian belief. In other words, such beliefs about how to understand the Bible clearly don’t work and can lead one into serious error.â€
The question occurred to me after rejecting Christianity as a man-made religion. I’ve dealt with it personally. If an answer hadn’t been forth coming, you would be talking to an Atheist. Because after I realized that Christianity is just a man-made religion, I also realized that an interpreted Bible is an acknowledgement that the Bible is nothing more than the writings of men. Which would have meant to me that what most people think of the Bible is true. It stands or falls with Christianity. If I had went according to conventional thinking of Christians and non-Christians alike, I would not just be a former Christian. I would be an anti-Christian who with Richard Dawkins would be preaching the gospel of Evolutionism that teaches that there is no natural evidence for the existence of God because the universe is a Law unto itself.
I’ve mentioned this matter several times since I’ve been on this forum. You have responded to some of those posts. I thought you understood.
Growth is the key. We are all in different stages of growth. A child of four and a child of ten will understand things differently. If the parents and teachers are worth their salt the children will be taught different things according to their ability to understand. There is milk and there is meat and there is everything in between. Has nothing to do with interpretation. The practice of interpretation, if anything, will contaminate the food. Especially when the interpretation become an authority. The practice of interpretation leads one into error. Not following the teaching of Jesus.
You claim that one who reads the Bible automatically interprets the Bible. My question to you is, why should I consider my reading of the Bible that led to my initial conversion to be anything more than a personal interpretation?
FC
“An†authoritative Bible interpreter is just as likely to be wrong as many.?â€
Precisely. An interpretation really is of no value to anyone but the interpreter. The product of an interpretation is just a personal opinion. And just as with any other written document, an interpretation really has nothing to do with what the Bible actually is saying.
Note the differences between the interpretations of the American constitution in the first fifty years of American history and the interpretations of it today. Which interpretations are more correct? The modern interpreters claim to follow the whole of the two centuries of previous interpretations. The Constitution has only one meaning. Interpretation changes the meaning. The idea of a Judicial system that interprets the Constitution seems to be rational. But the practice tells the tale in the end.
A written document is only of any real value if it always means what it says, if it always means the same thing. But written documents have no life of their own. The author of the document is the life of the document so long as he lives. When that author dies, the life of the document becomes the interpreters of the document. An interpretation is only an opinion as to what the document means. The author is no longer available to interpret his own document.
It’s true that Christianity has for the most part considered both the writers and the author to be the same, and thus gave credence to their practice of interpretation because the writers are dead and can no longer interpret their own writings. I believe the author of the Bible still lives. The human writers are dead, but the supernatural author is alive. The human writers were not the author of the Bible. They were guided in what they wrote by the Spirit of God. If you want to equate that with automatic writing, the truth of the matter is clear.
If the writers were in any way authors of the Bible, then inspiration is like poetical inspiration. Which is how the liberals view the matter. They had certain experiences that they interpreted to be experiences of God. The nature of their real experiences we can’t say for sure because they are dead. We can only understand and apply their writings in a personal way according to our interpretations. Since the writers of the Bible are dead, that would be for the interpreters to decide. And a historically based community such as Catholicism would be more likely to get it right than the individual interpreters of Protestantism, in my opinion. Because that would truly be taking into consideration 2000 years of historical interpretations.
“And just what is it that makes one “an authoritative Bible interpreterâ€? â€
The Orthodox and Catholics claim a historical basis for their authority. This authority was passed to the Apostles and through them to the Church. Jesus is the foundation of the one universal Church that has existed historically for two millennia. It is that Church that is the one and only authoritative Bible interpreter. Tradition is the historic development of the understanding of the reality initially portrayed in the Bible. The Orthodox only recognizes the development that took place in the first millennia, while the Catholics recognize a development that continues in the West to the present day.
On the surface that makes sense. There is an obvious authoritative connection between Christ and the Apostles. But as Protestants rightly point out, there is no such connection between the Apostles and the “Apostolic Succession†that follows. Such a connection is just an interpretation.
Protestant authoritative interpreters claim they have Apostolic authority through the authority of the Bible alone. But eventually I realized that too is just an interpretation.
And you’re not the only Protestant to invoke 2000 years of Christian scholarship. But it is Catholic scholarship, not Protestant. Protestant scholarship is only a few hundred years old, a scholarship that has developmentally led into a diversity of understandings of the Bible because of the underlying idea of Protestantism that individual interpretations have value, even to being authoritative in their own right.
“you have provided no persuasive argument that only Jesus can interpret the Bible whereas I have provided much Scripture. And indeed you will not be able to do so as that idea is nowhere to be found in Scripture and even denies God having given teachers to the church.â€
The Lordship of Jesus Christ should be persuasive enough. How many Lords do you think there are? When we interpret the Bible we declare ourselves Lord, over God and over Jesus Christ. As if we know better than the source as to what the Bible means. When the interpretations take on the nature of authority, the interpreter becomes a Lord to their followers. And the community that follows that Lord becomes nothing more than a man-made religion that claims the authority of Jesus Christ for itself. That’s what Christian denominations are. Usurpers of the Lordship of Christ. I am a former Christian because I realized that to be true.
“Bible teachers†are so important in Protestantism as to be emphasized. As the Eucharist or Lord’s Table is emphasized in Catholicism. But there’s a big difference between the Spiritual gift of teaching that teaches what Jesus teaches and the Protestant Bible teacher who teaches according to personal or Traditional interpretations of the Bible.
And if you happen to be one who thinks the Spiritual “gifts†ceased after the first century, you have no ground to believe in the existence of Bible teachers today, other than Protestant Tradition.
“And yet, despite having mentioned it several times, you have not dealt with my argument that everyone who has come in to these forums and said something along the lines of “all we have to do is read the Bible and believe it,†or “just let Jesus or the Holy Spirit tell you,†have all differed in their beliefs from each other at certain points and from what is considered orthodox Christian belief. In other words, such beliefs about how to understand the Bible clearly don’t work and can lead one into serious error.â€
The question occurred to me after rejecting Christianity as a man-made religion. I’ve dealt with it personally. If an answer hadn’t been forth coming, you would be talking to an Atheist. Because after I realized that Christianity is just a man-made religion, I also realized that an interpreted Bible is an acknowledgement that the Bible is nothing more than the writings of men. Which would have meant to me that what most people think of the Bible is true. It stands or falls with Christianity. If I had went according to conventional thinking of Christians and non-Christians alike, I would not just be a former Christian. I would be an anti-Christian who with Richard Dawkins would be preaching the gospel of Evolutionism that teaches that there is no natural evidence for the existence of God because the universe is a Law unto itself.
I’ve mentioned this matter several times since I’ve been on this forum. You have responded to some of those posts. I thought you understood.
Growth is the key. We are all in different stages of growth. A child of four and a child of ten will understand things differently. If the parents and teachers are worth their salt the children will be taught different things according to their ability to understand. There is milk and there is meat and there is everything in between. Has nothing to do with interpretation. The practice of interpretation, if anything, will contaminate the food. Especially when the interpretation become an authority. The practice of interpretation leads one into error. Not following the teaching of Jesus.
You claim that one who reads the Bible automatically interprets the Bible. My question to you is, why should I consider my reading of the Bible that led to my initial conversion to be anything more than a personal interpretation?
FC
