So, those who follow the Bible follow what was in the beginning and ARE orthodox
Follow, as in works? Or follow as in private interpretation of the message? Or follow literally? All three are "following" but all three are not necessarily orthodox.
It's just that their interpretation of it is so afoul of logic, reason, common sense, context, etc., that they cannot be considered Bible-believing.
And whose interpretation is orthodox? Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Unitarian, etc? They all claim theirs is the orthodox interpretation. But if they all believe in one and the same thing, then why have all those different denominations? Ego? Or theological differences? (the latter seems a lot more logical to me)
So, they all claim to believe in the Bible, but they all believe in their own man-made Bible.
Kosta: Which begs the question, what then makes the "Bible-believing" Christians different from other true Christians?
FK: The difference is in the level of fidelity to the true scriptures. I freely admit that it is subjective
Well that settles that issue, I guess. It's all subjective and not objective. And who defines what "true" scriptures are? More subjective opinions?
You are close to admitting it, but you will resist (for a while at least) that the Church which was given the auhtority directly from Christ to bind and losen also had the task of deciding which books constitute the scripture. And you accept their choices, mor eor less, but reject their authority. LOL!
Well, I would agree with YOU that all true Christians must believe in the MESSAGE of the Bible. The hard part is in agreeing on what that message is.
I am ecstatic that you agree with me but you really don't. Only those who believe the true message can be true Christians. But since it seems you are beginning to realize that the 'truth" in the message is in the mind of the beholder, it is impossible to determine who, and to what degree of fidelity, is anyone is a "true" Christian. That's why the Lord established One, Catholic and Apostolic Church, so that we may not wonder all over the place with private interpretations, placing them above those given directly to the Apostles and their successors. It was a wise idea !
Kosta: The Church derives its beliefs from Christ's oral teachings, which were later expressed as apostolic writings or scriptures (graqh [didn't copy]) of known and unknown authors that comprise the New Testament.
FK: Well, if that was the whole of it then that would be one thing. But since the Church uses many extra-scriptural writings for its beliefs AND puts them on the same level as Holy Scriptures, that is a big strike against being considered Bible-believing Christians. :)
The Apostles used the Septuagint , and quote Jesus quoting Septuagint, which contains all those books you call "extra-scriptural." Obviously they had no problems with that, and they never called those books "hidden" or anything less than the OT scripture. The Pharisees did. Now, why do you side with the enemies of Christ on this? So, I would say those who reject them are Bible-believeing alright, but Christians they can't be, because one cannot be a Christian and reject what the Apostles considered sacred writings and keep what they like.
You wrote in 6677: Well, if you remember, MY personal stance has always been that satan has only ever MISquoted the Bible, and to a substantive degree
We have already mentioned Matthew attributing a quote to Jeremiah when it was really from Zachariah.
In Ephesians (4:8) Paul misquotes (intentionally?) Ps.68:18, which says: "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men." And Paul says gave .
In Romans 9:33 (on the left) he quotes from Isaiah 28:16 (on the right). Here are the two quotes:
|
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed [KJV] "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame [NIV] |
Therefore thus saith the L-rd GOD: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a costly corner-stone of sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste [Tanakh, MT] Therefore thus says the Lord, even the Lord, "Behold, I lay for the foundations of Zion a costly stone, a choice cornerstone and precious, for its foundations; and he that believes on Him shall by no means be ashamed. {Septuagint, LXX] |
I think the differences are quite telling.
In Romans 10:8 Paul changes the meaning to suit his gospel of faith alone and no works by misquoting Deut. 30:14
This is something that I have been trying to bring to everyone's attention: Paul was preaching to Bereans in this case, where the rabbis would have caught his error, because they checked on him. He was preaching to ignorant Romans and Greeks who knew nothing of the Hebrew scriptures and couldn't read them. So, any of the authors could have misqouted anything they wanted in order to make a "sales pitch." This is an example of how Paul manipulated the Torah of all parts of the Bible to make it "fit" his newly invented faith-alone theology.
Matthew (13:35) does something very similar and takes the license to change (i.e. misquote) Psalm 78:2
| Mat 13:35 | Ps. 78:2 |
| That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world [KJV] |
I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter dark sayings concerning days of old. That which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. [Tanakh, v 2-3] I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter dark sayings which have been from the beginning. All which we have heard and known, and our fathers have declared to us. [Sedptuagint, v. 2-3 |
Clearly, by leaving out verse 3, Matthew creates a completely different meaning of the Psalm he (mis)quotes. He blends verse 2 and 3 into one intentional fabrication with a different menaing.
Of course we can always blame these on "scribal" errors, which is very possible, but nevertheless no less serious in misleading a private interpretation to conclude soemthing that was not in the original text. This, we cannot assume that the integrity of the original texts have been preserved without error.
Follow, as in works? Or follow as in private interpretation of the message? Or follow literally? All three are "following" but all three are not necessarily orthodox.
Follow as in CORRECT interpretation. I have faith that the Apostles taught correctly and had correct interpretation. Therefore, following their teachings leads to a Bible-based faith. That is, if they meant what they said. If what they wrote was all in secret code that needed to be deciphered by a group of self-aggrandizing men many years later, then of course following the Bible as is would be a waste of time.
And whose interpretation is orthodox? Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Unitarian, etc? They all claim theirs is the orthodox interpretation. But if they all believe in one and the same thing, then why have all those different denominations? Ego? Or theological differences? (the latter seems a lot more logical to me)
An orthodox interpretation VERY closely matches the collective and harmonious text and meaning of the totality of scriptures. Minor theological differences do not disqualify a faith from being a Bible-believing one. By no means is mine the only Bible-believing faith. However, there is a "line", and users of the term usually know it when we see it, that when crossed DOES disqualify a particular faith from being "Bible-believing". General claims are of no matter. It's the substance of the faith itself that matters.
FK: The difference is in the level of fidelity to the true scriptures. I freely admit that it is subjective.
Well that settles that issue, I guess. It's all subjective and not objective.
Well, remember that the only issue at hand here is "who is a Bible-believing Christian?" It is a man-made term so it will be subjective. I still find it to be a useful term.
You are close to admitting it, but you will resist (for a while at least) that the Church which was given the authority directly from Christ to bind and loosen also had the task of deciding which books constitute the scripture. And you accept their choices, more or less, but reject their authority. LOL!
I am not close to admitting anything of the sort. :) The Apostolic Church was never given anything like the powers that your "respective" hierarchies now claim for themselves in their claimed "respective" dominations over Christianity. Men do not now, and never have made decisions that only God can make. Therefore, I do not accept the choices of any men as to what is God's word. Only God can determine what is God's word, since it is HIS word. In the same way, I accept that the Fathers wrote what they wrote, because it was NOT God's word, but their own words. I accept that for what it is too. In those cases when their words parrot God's words, then I give thanks again to God.
Only those who believe the true message can be true Christians. But since it seems you are beginning to realize that the 'truth" in the message is in the mind of the beholder, it is impossible to determine who, and to what degree of fidelity, is anyone is a "true" Christian.
Yes, but we are not called upon to judge if anyone else is a "true Christian", so there is no need to determine it. That is only between that other person and God, just as it is with us. God established one Church of all believers, and by His design they populate many different faiths. This is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. In that way no one man or group of men can claim superiority over all other men. It's a humility thing, and it is what Jesus taught. I just don't see a lot of humility in those who think they have absolute power over the one and only true Christian faith.