As well as things go; I am now on permanent vacation and searching full time for work.
But the vast majority of the rest of the NT (if not all of it), especially Paul's epistles serve as clarification and explanation of the Gospel books. I don't see how one can read the more specific THROUGH the (in many cases) less specific. I would have to add that when it is said that the rest of scripture must be read through the Gospels what that means to me is that it must be read through the Latin Church's interpretation of the Gospels.
Christianity began, not with the Latin Church's interpretation of anything, rather, the Jerusalem Church's interpretation of the life and teachings of Jesus and the creation of a variety of documents with which they continued the teachings. Initially there was little documentation - most Christians were illiterate, with the exception of the educated Jews and the occasional individual such as Luke - and such as it was would have been overshadowed by the Jewish oral tradition, which was among the best and most complete in the world.
Again, it seems backwards to me to interpret the less specific first, and then make the more specific conform. It seems much more natural to me to look at a given Gospel passage and if it is crystal clear then fine, but if not then look to the rest of scripture for context and clarification. All of it is God's word.
There is God's word and then there is the Word of God. Just as the Jews consider the Torah the most holy portion of the Tanakh (which Scripture says was dicated by God to Moses), and the rest of the Tanakh is commentary and histories, Christianity from the beginning considered the histories of Jesus - Luke would have used these (including Q) to construct his Gospel, along with the earlier Gospels. We consider the Word of God (Jesus) to be the pinnacle and everything else points to them and is commentary upon them. The writings of Paul are largely instructions to his flock, but they only have reflected light shining from the Gospels - they mean nothing on their own. Without the Gospels, of what use is Paul? Or Peter? Or James?
I don't understand why the CCC would need to be read through anything at all. With the scriptures we take them as we get them.
The point is how do you get them? The Lutherans get them one way; the various Reformed get them in various Reformed ways; the Methodists get them in another way; and each non denominational pastor or Baptist minister has his own interpretation as well. The Church, as outlined very greatly in Scripture, is a teaching authority, among other responsibilities. The Church is not charged with throwing snippets of Scripture into the air and having people pick up whatever they find in whatever order they find.
But with the CCC the Church authority could put anything it wanted to in there, and amend it to make things even more clear and understandable. Why didn't the Church just be plain about everything and make it a stand alone document that doesn't need interpretation? I would think one of the main purposes of the CCC was to BE an interpretation of the Bible.
The Church was charged with defining an undefineable God, and using finite language to describe an infinite God. I think that they have done quite well as far as they have. Look, it only took three centuries to more or less agree on the Canon. The Catechism is an explanation of the Faith, not a verse by verse commentary on Scripture. When the Church first started teaching, there was no NT Scripture at all. The emphasis was on teaching the Faith - Acts is very clear on that, not on Scriptural commentary. There is the one instance of Paul telling us about the Berean Jews searching the OT. Yet, we also have Peter telling us that the writings of Paul may be misunderstood; are there any other instances of Scriptural study being elevated over the teaching of the Faith? I'm not sure that I remember any.
I am very sorry to hear that. I'm in the same boat so I suppose when I said I was "well" it was a relative term. :) I'll be praying for you. Economically, I sure have hope for a change in two and a half weeks and in two years. Just got my newly-turned-18 y.o. daughter registered. We'll show 'em how to rock the vote. :)
FK: But the vast majority of the rest of the NT (if not all of it), especially Paul's epistles serve as clarification and explanation of the Gospel books. I don't see how one can read the more specific THROUGH the (in many cases) less specific.
Christianity began, not with the Latin Church's interpretation of anything, rather, the Jerusalem Church's interpretation of the life and teachings of Jesus and the creation of a variety of documents with which they continued the teachings. Initially there was little documentation - most Christians were illiterate, with the exception of the educated Jews and the occasional individual such as Luke - and such as it was would have been overshadowed by the Jewish oral tradition, which was among the best and most complete in the world.
I would see the oral transmission of the literal life and teachings of Christ AS the Gospel books. Eyewitnesses, or those close, spoke of and then wrote down what they saw, etc. The Gospel books read very often as a matter-of-fact narrative. However, of course interpretation is also frequently needed, such as with parables, etc. So, for example, I don't see how one can read a commentary explaining a parable THROUGH the parable itself. When Jesus explained the parable of the seeds (Mark 4:13-20), it doesn't occur to me to nuance Jesus' explanation through His original words. It's just the opposite. The original words stand, unchanged. They are understood through clarification, context, reference, or explanation, etc. But when I see "read through the Gospels" I get the impression that it is the human explanation that is unchanging and that the original words are nuanced to match it.
There is God's word and then there is the Word of God.
Yes, I always use "word of God" (God's word) to mean scripture and "Word of God" to mean Christ.
The writings of Paul are largely instructions to his flock, but they only have reflected light shining from the Gospels - they mean nothing on their own. Without the Gospels, of what use is Paul? Or Peter? Or James?
I fully agree. They would have no authority without the information in the Gospel books. But this would seem to support my position that the natural flow would be to start with the firm foundation of the Gospels, and then come to greater understanding THROUGH clarification, context, reference, or explanation, etc. Since Paul is also Biblical authority, it wouldn't seem correct to me to "change" his explanation based on the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Gospels that I follow. I would think that Paul's interpretation of the Gospels would trump several Christians' writings about it many many years after the Apostolic age.
FK: I don't understand why the CCC would need to be read through anything at all. With the scriptures we take them as we get them.
The point is how do you get them? The Lutherans get them one way; the various Reformed get them in various Reformed ways; the Methodists get them in another way; and each non denominational pastor or Baptist minister has his own interpretation as well.
I just meant that we all get them from God, as the CCC says. We all get interpretations from various sources, however .............
The Church, as outlined very greatly in Scripture, is a teaching authority, among other responsibilities. The Church is not charged with throwing snippets of Scripture into the air and having people pick up whatever they find in whatever order they find.
Scripture is very clear that THE ultimate teaching authority is Holy Spirit:
I suppose it boils down again to whom is meant by "The Church" and whether it makes sense that God would only send information and reminding to a select few for further re-interpretation, or does God actually want a personal relationship with each of His children via personal spiritual communication.
Jesus taught from the OT, on the road to Emmaus Jesus opened the eyes of the apostles and taught them that all the old testament . He plainly taught what generations of their scholars had not seen ..that only through His suffering could Jesus save men .
So the apostles taught jesus from the Old Testament ..but to say there was no New Testament would not be accurate.. the epistles were circulated among the churches to teach doctrine to those that had been saved ... Peter advised the churches to listen to Paul, because Pauls writings were SCRIPTURE (the infallible word of God)
So the New testament church had the witness of the OT and the doctrine and teachings of the New testament