This is silly stuff because you miss the very first word of the quote “individual” interpretation, and then go onto quote what Jewish sects practiced. This is the danger of resorting to internet theology.
If there are four Protestant neighborhood churches. (1) First United, (2) Calvary, (3) Emanuel, and (4) First Baptist.
You go to one, the pastor is gay, you switch to two and the pastor is a pacifist, now you switch to three and the pastor speaks of a prosperity gospel, you now go to the last remaining foursquare Church and the pastor preaches “those chickens will come home to roost” gospel. They each defend “interpretations” with passage sin scripture.
Finally you stay at home, and decide to crack open the pages of the Bible and divine the truth with sophomoric excursions into random internet citations. This ends in as many beliefs as there are people. It contradicts the notion that Christ taught ONE truth and allows for multiplicity of beliefs, and this now flatly contradicts the very teaching authority scripture that there be ONE truth.
What is truly silly is your own lack of comprehension; first, that your own declarative proclamations are not worth the trouble it took yourself to assert them, and then of course, that followed by the failure on your own part to recognize those assertions have been (quite easily, I may add) falsified ---- shown to be in error.
You said that the Jews, and the early Christians did not practice "individual interpretation", even as I showed you that many Jews did individually stand and speak, providing their own exegesis as it were.
Christ Himself most certainly did give His own "individual interpretation", even as was the custom for Jews to do so. [Strike one]
For those whom could actually hear Him, what did they take note of but that no man had spoken to themselves with authority such as He did?
Later, Peter and other Apostles, although not all of them deeply learned men, as in themselves having been biblical scholars equal to Paul, ---> still spoke with great authority, a deep assurance, (which was noticed by the listeners, I might add) for they were speaking of what they knew of Christ, having witnessed that first-hand, and how what had been witnessed directly by themselves then also related to the Scriptures, even as for what it all meant, hence --- what the interpretations of all of these things, the events and the Scriptures both, taken all together, in actual fact most properly were.
Should I bring those passages of Scripture, so that you may examine them, and then perhaps see what was going on, and thus better understand what I'm talking about?
For the Jews to engage in oral presentation by way of oral Midrash & discussion, does not mean that they did so entirely disconnected from their own faith traditions. Albeit it could often enough be that those same traditions themselves had became part of the problem, as can be seen at those times & places wherein Jesus corrected them, judging and condemning the errors of their ways and traditions whenever He encountered those, although noticeably Himself also still working within the set of understandings which they well should have had, had those previous generations of persons whom had formed the various customs and traditions been sensitive and yielding to the The Spirit, as that can be discerned under the Law (for the Law came from Spirit -- not the other way around).
As for the post-Apostolic age earliest Christians, they were often more or less forced to give explanation.
That is impossible to do without reaching into what one themselves understands, and that understanding is always subject to some amount of personal interpretation, if but for one to internally interpret what some teacher (or many teachers) have said in regard to Scripture, history, traditions, etc.
I know of only one other way --- and that would be to have one's each and every word come to themselves as led by the Spirit of the Lord, most chiefly -- thus 'alone', in that sense. I do not personally myself lay claim to such ability, though I am not entirely without the Spirit being present with myself, even as I write this, the remaining question being --- how well am I myself yielding to and allowing myself to be led of the Spirit, which is one of those sort of critical self-examination sort of things which a Christian must be ever searching themselves inwardly, checking as for how well the Spirit within themselves is either aligned with that which has already trickled it's way into one's own understandings (thus interpretations of things) or else the Spirit of God be preferring to provide some correction towards.
For those whom have had the Lord correct themselves in this manner, while also at other times opening up their understandings to whatever it is that any particular individual may have up until time not realized, the Lord (by His Spirit) provided to themselves clarity (and peace) in the same manner in which Peter was given knowledge by way of the Spirit, that Jesus was the Messiah (even though Peter's brother Andrew had already told Peter that exact thing, by way of human speech), those persons could possibly know what I'm talking about here, even as the Lord also uses ministers and teachers (and even those given truly prophetic insight) to assist other individuals in this same process.
From 1 Corinthians 14;
Athanasius was but a relatively young deacon when he pressed his own case against Arius, using his own words and reasoning as towards how the precept of God appearing to us in form of Trinity should first -- be adopted, then --- be best described, thus conceptually *thought about* and theologically considered.
Many others also wrote for or against some particular theological position or another, so in that way were themselves sharing their own personal understandings of Scripture, and their own personal understanding of what "traditions" there were also, pretty much each and every time they wrote a single word that was not simply reciting Scripture itself, or repeating verbatim what someone else had said or written, of the faith.
Among those whom strayed into serious errors, were many who themselves had been appointed bishops of the Church, which shows there is no real guarantee one or another that those in positions of ecclesiastical 'authority' will be always correct.
The Apostle Paul himself wrote to many, encouraging them to search the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was correct, or not, praising those whom did so.
Notice there that Paul did not say "go to what is traditionally said of, or else written of and about Scripture", but to go to the very Scripture itself.
Being that Paul must have been most chiefly referring to Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) when he wrote what he did, one may attempt to argue here that the NT writings are a different kettle of fish entirely, resulting in that none save those in some position or another of perceived 'authority' could ever rightfully enough from the Scriptures and their own understanding of them, argue and present their own case as for some theological position, or aspect of Christian faith --- yet where in the world would that have left poor Athanasius once his own bishop had quite literally, died? Athanasius contra mundus, et mundum contra Athanasium, or "While the world is set against Athanasius, Athanasius is equally set against the world." [Strike two]
As for our conversation here, there is still the issue of the un-sourced Luther quote. It has begun to re-circulate here on this forum. Attribution for where the quote came from has been asked for, more than once.
Why has that not been provided?
The rest of your last note, the veritable strawman of church sketches and comparisons, would be laughable if they were not so sad from the opening of the sequence;
What of all the faggoty priests within the RCC which those in top echelon of authority within the RCC had long known about (we are talking multiple decades, at the least, for they were "treating" them as far back as the 1950's) yet did not dismiss and remove from within their own ranks?
Would it be "ok" for a (so-called) Catholic priest to be "gay", as long as whoever it was, was also allegedly celibate?
That was more or less how things went for a long time within the RCC, and still strongly tend to do so, even to this day. The "who am I to judge" statement made fairly recently by Bergoglio was made in context of that very thing, was it not?
I won't waste my own time going entirely through each step of the rest of your "silly" sketches and assertion (as for #1 -thru- #4 example churches, as if those were actually fair sampling, description & examples) but I will tell you that one can find Roman Catholic priests among leading pacifists, and that Jeremiah Wright has nothing to directly to do with "Four Square Gospel" church affiliations. [Strike three] ..and you are outta'there
From top to bottom, your overall assertions have been so thoroughly flawed the conclusions which follow are thereby contaminated.
Yet (I will ask you to ask yourself) were you not instead, working from the bottom up --- by which I mean from your own a priori conclusions, needing to invent things in order to justify those same conclusions, which often are so far overstated by yourself, they've been easy picking to have been shot down over and again on the pages of this forum, by those whom you've sputtered and spewed on thread after thread, were "sophomoric" and/or labeled "internet theologians"?
If the case cannot be made without resorting to strawmen and insults, then the "case" itself as reasoned and worded must be lacking --- or else --- your own ability to coherently present the case may be lacking also, as part of the overall problem.
The Luther quote.
SOURCE. Provide the source from where you are copy/pasting that from.
And this "one truth" you keep yammering on about.
In your own words, what is it?
Myself, I already know the truth, and the truth has set me free.
The Lord Himself has told me directly, even word-for-word, in the Spirit;
The word of the Lord -- given to me(!)
What personal testimony can you give? Do you have one at all?
Or is all which you know, or *think* you know, have come to yourself second-hand?
If that be the case, then it's no wonder that you continue to raise such dogged opposition towards those whom are not limited to the same conditions which you, yourself perhaps are.
Did you just diss the Holy Spirit; who will lead you in all truth?