Replies

I might welcome oral teachings as a compliment to scriptures if they are in support of what is already in the Bible, or at the very least, not contradictory to it.

That's well and good, but one's interpretation should not be the rule of faith of Christianity. Christianity is NOT a religion of the book, but of a God-man, Jesus Christ. If anything, it is quite amazing how Christianity often had to SEPERATE themselves from the "book", the commonly-held interpretation of the Bible. For example, "he who hangs on a tree is condemned". The book says Jesus is condemned. But we base our religion on the experience of the Risen Lord, which was prophesied by reading this book in a CERTAIN MANNER! As a result, by slavishly following "the book" while disregarding Christian interpretations of it, I find it difficult to understand how one can accuse those first Christians of "contradicting" Scripture, as if that disqualifies one from being Christian. The Bible was NEVER their first and only rule of faith! Christians found that they HAD to "contradict" the commonly-held notions to explain their cognitive dissonance that they experienced.

Before condemning an interpretation, one SHOULD look at what the FIRST Christians did and practiced. It is possible that your own interpretations might be incorrect - since you are far removed in time and culture from the original authors of Scripture, the Apostles.

Regards

For example, "he who hangs on a tree is condemned". The book says Jesus is condemned. But we base our religion on the experience of the Risen Lord, which was prophesied by reading this book in a CERTAIN MANNER!

But Jesus was condemned and cursed by the Jews. That was Jewish tradition for the crime of blasphemy. Of course it was a FALSE condemnation as Peter (1 Peter, Acts) and Paul (Galatians) later explain in the NT. The book as a whole, is thus correct, without any unknowable interpretation.

As a result, by slavishly following "the book" while disregarding Christian interpretations of it, ...

We just disagree on which Christians should be doing the interpreting. :) I slavishly follow the book because it is of God, and I do not slavishly follow men.

Christians found that they HAD to "contradict" the commonly-held notions to explain their cognitive dissonance that they experienced.

And all this time you have been arguing that if a notion was commonly held, it must have been right. The popularity argument. I'm glad to see that you now allow for some popular views to have been wrong.