Posted on 05/14/2010 11:03:45 AM PDT by NYer
I suspect most of you guys don't even know your pope just lied to you...But then I suspect that you don't even care...
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Scripture is itself an ecclesial document, to be interpreted in and by the Church. It must be interpreted in such a way that dogmatic teachings about God (such as his unchanging goodness) are in accord with our understanding of Scriptural text. If reason suggests a disconnect between an interpretation and dogma, we must follow dogma and dismiss the interpretation. Richard Gaillardetz explains this well:
So the inspired, God breathed words of Holy Scripture must line up with your Church's theology and dogma, or the inspired, God breathed scripture is wrong...
I am almost speechless and I can imagine what God thinks about this...
Likewise the person so interpreting Scripture is doing it out of pride as well, intellectual pride that places their interpretation above others based in the erroneous belief that they know what objective reality is.
God's Word isn't truth to anyone who picks and chooses what to believe out of it and has to manipulate it to fit with his worldview.
Since it was the Church under the influence of the Holy Spirit that selected the books of the Bible, it stands to reason that the Church will have the authority to interpret it. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it...
Isn't this what ALL Christians do?
NOWHERE does the Bible use the word "Trinity", do you accept Mormon interpretation that rejects the Trinity or do you believe basic Christian dogma?
NOWHERE does Jesus Christ say that He is God, do you accept Mormon interpretation that says He is simply the Son of God or do you believe basic Christian dogma?
People have been coming up with bizarre interpretations of the Bible for centuries and Christians reject these interpretations because they do not conform to basic Christian dogma.
The Sun doesn't circle the Earth.
Once one pridefully declares their own interpretation as “God's word” they have committed intellectual suicide and are incapable of changing their view in response to any rational evidence.
Both my view of the meaning of data in regards to a scientific theory, and my interpretation of scripture is subject to change in response to objectively observed reality.
Only with this mindset can one make any intellectual progression beyond the simplistic mindset that if they think the Bible says the Sun circles the Earth, then no amount of evidence will ever change their view.
This is a view that cannot be reasoned with, as no amount of reasonable evidence can change a worldview dependent upon supernatural rather than rational means.
“For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct), it must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church.”
Talk about narcissism. The (Catholic) church’s made-up tenets trump the inspired Scriptures? OMG! (And I mean that literally.) Gives new meaning to “the tail wagging the dog”.
bump for later.
I suspect that you have no clue what the symbol "cf." means because NOWHERE did the Pope indicate that he was quoting Romans 12:1.
And how many thousands of demoninations are there? It's simple to ask, but the empirical evidence proves that the answer is not simple at all.
There are some things that I find a little wobbly about the Catholic position espoused here, but let me start with a point of agreement, at least provisionally. If you take Scripture (especially the Old Testament, an oral tradition-cum-written text) as a cultural phenomenon — i.e., a product of x number of human authors within a particular linguistic/historical/cultural community — then fundamentalist methodolgy (specifically, the notion of biblical inerrancy) seems fairly problematic.
But, let’s start with the question of the Gospel. Let’s have the Catholics answer whether Jesus existed? Who was He? Who did He claim to be? What happened to Him, particularly was He crucified and resurrected? If so, what does this sacrifice mean for us? What are we to do? What is God doing in our lives? Tell me about justification, sanctification, perseverance of saints and the afterlife.
Okay, supposing I get the Catholic answers to those questions, and I am not even going to ask how they got the answers (i.e., I am not going to worry myself about allusions in this article that spice it with the Catholic idea that biblical truth is necessarily ecclesiastical and that the antidote to fundamentalist simplicity, fundamentalist error, fundamentalist idolatry and intellectual suicide (”you are so dumb that your brain is literally dead — and you killed it yourself”). Me no askie where the answers came from. Me just ask what the answers are.
Okay, so, I am talking history now — like Dennis Hopper in Tarantino’s True Romance. Once we get the answer to the question of God in history and Jesus in history (however the Catholic gets there), there is now a question about what this living God does in history, especially with His Word. And, from that perspective (call it a Christian realist perspective in Dostoevsky’s sense), fundamentalist interpretation seems much less simplistic to me. Whether God wants us to approach Him through literalist interpretations of Scripture (and, if so, intellectual suicide starts sounding more like an Abrahamic trial that establishes man’s faith and Pauline foolishness that humbles the proud), that question becomes a question that we answer by asking — asking God. God, what will you have me do? And, it wouldn’t be surprising to me if the answer WAS NOT “take a college course on bible scholarship and modern literary technique.” It might be that the starting and ending point is Scripture.
Was there a burning bush? Did Moses exist and was there an Exodus to the promised land, with a parting of the Red Sea along the way? Was Jonah in the belly of a whale? Was Christ crucified and is He risen?
Let’s just stick to the question of Jesus, as I am happy to know that and nothing else. Shall we take the gospel accounts literally or not? Might they be wrong? If so, what does the Catholic say they are wrong about? The point being, don’t slam the notion of inerrancy and take some easy shots at the Old Testament. Let’s get to the heart of the matter. Tell me where the Gospels might be wrong in terms of Christology. Under Catholic/ecclesiastical methodology, tell me a piece of the Gospel story that is not or may not be true. And only then, can we have a proper discussion of methodology.
And, in that case, it might turn out that because we weren’t there, because we don’t know what happened, the best thing we have to go by is the accepted texts understood fairly literally. In that case, literalism may not seem like intellectual suicide, but rather a form of methodological humility for a believer who is hearing tell of what God Himself did for us, but only first hearing about it some 2000 after the fact.
Did you have a point? Or do you belong to one of these cults that denies the Trinity?
http://www.allaboutgod.com/truth/2-timothy-3.htm
2 tim 3:16 don’t see anything in the scripture saying that “the church” was involved
I'm sure your pope knows most of you don't even own a Bible so checking up on him was of no concern...
HaHaHa...Your pope says to compare what he said with the actual scripture...And again, here's what he said:
Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1)
Your pope says he's quoting Paul and throws a little bit of Greek in there and gives what appears to be the meaning in English and then tells you to compare it with the actual scripture...Cute piece of deception...
Your pope tells you that you must worship in Harmony with the eternal Word (not scripture) and your own, or your pope's 'reason'...And that's a lie...
Paul did not say to worship with reason...He said to present yourselves a living sacrifice, which is your 'reasonable' service...
What a hoax...
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Just! Why does everyone want to leave out Just?
Blah, blah, poppycock.
II Peter 1:20 Knowing this first that no prophesy
of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophesy came not in old time by the will
of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved
by the Holy Spirit.
The Bible in the original tongue is perfect.
The Bible cannot contradict itself.
Always take the Bible literally unless it is a figure of
speech or it “seems” that there is an apparent contradiction.
The interpretation always must be in light of the clear
verses.
Remember, I Timothy 2:4 Who (God) will have all men to
to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth.
God didn’t make it difficult to be a Christian (saved).
Confess Jesus Christ as you Lord and believe that God
raised him from the dead, Romans 10:9,10. That’s it!
That all! Most organized denomination don’t get it.
They never will.
Unless I misunderstood your post:
“NOWHERE does Jesus Christ say that He is God ...”
I am saying there is scripture where Jesus Christ does say he is God.
Hi NYer,
It’s nice to have this dialogue with you. I’m a supporter of reading the Bible as it comes. If we can trust God for something as important as eternal salvation, we can absolutely trust him to deliver his word to us in a format we can all understand.
“Avoid Intellectual Suicide: Do Not Interpret the Bible Like a Fundamentalist”
Sooooo.....don’t take God at His word?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.