Replies

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.

The Faith was formulated by attention to and focusing on the Gospels; the 'Magisterium', or teaching authority, was formed in order to keept the human explanation first orthodox (remember that there were as many heresies in those days as there are today), and second consistent (there was to be one Faith, not myriad ones).

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.

The faith was largely formed in the first 100 years, with the exception of the big ticket items the formula of the Trinity, and the canon of Scripture. Certainly St. Paul make up a great deal of the Faith; yet I do not accept that when I present "Jesus said this" and am countered with "Paul said that", that is an effective counterargument. I consider it invalid simply because of the relative positions of Jesus and Paul. There was a Reformed claim yesterday that the Gospel could be summed up in five verses of Paul (listed). If that is to be accepted, then we run the risk of stepping right into full Paulianity and away from Christianity.

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.

If it were truly the Holy Spirit that men were listening to, there would be one Faith and no need for anybody having to teach it. However, the empirical proof is that without that Church that Jesus so painstakingly created and nurtured during His ministry, Luther's any milkmaid reigns supreme and not the Holy Spirit.