Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^ It's a problem for me because the church I attend (Church of Christ) is based totally on literal interpretation of the New Testament only, with no extra canonical texts allowed. Since some things about basic church functions are vague in the NT disputes start about things in which neither side can even prove who's right or wrong.
I still don't see the problem with the scripture. Paul is clear who is talking, him, not God. Sorry, if a church has problems with that then I would recommend another church that actually allows for you to read the bible and understand it how God want to you.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,489,236 times
Reputation: 12187
OP here.
Let me restate my quandary since this thread is a little old. Most of my family (and myself) attend Churches of Christ where the NT "Canon" is treated as something where every single word holds 100% authority over what anyone - or any church - can or can't do.
I have always had strong doubts as to whether that belief is true or whether the CoC are basically 21st century Pharisees that live to the letter of the word but not the intention. Several inconsistancies in the Bible make it really hard for me to believe that there is no human error - or human opinions - in the accepted Bible.
Prime example... in Acts 9 Saul and the men with him were all blinded by light but only Saul heard a voice. In Acts 22 the with Saul heard a voice but saw no one - only Saul saw the light/ being.
^ Would a supreme being of God (aka the Holy Spirit) make such an obvious error or is the extent to which the Spirit guided the writers totally make up or exaggerated??
Another point: I was reading the letter by Paul's under study Barnabas. Barnabas asserts that it is utterly sinful for married Christian women to, well, do a "Monica Lewinsky" on their husbands. If everyone that lived in the early church knew this was true but it was never in his NT writings does that mean that all Christian women who have ever done "that" without repentance sinned and went to hell? What exactly is "all scripture?"
I still don't see the problem with the scripture. Paul is clear who is talking, him, not God. Sorry, if a church has problems with that then I would recommend another church that actually allows for you to read the bible and understand it how God want to you.
I know from experience that some churches will say "our way or the highway". I'm not talking about new members who came in with wild interpretations and doctrines, but long time members who walked with the Lord and had grown out of the stale Pentecostal realm. They lost several members (and their tithes and offerings) with that policy.
Let me restate my quandary since this thread is a little old. Most of my family (and myself) attend Churches of Christ where the NT "Canon" is treated as something where every single word holds 100% authority over what anyone - or any church - can or can't do.
I have always had strong doubts as to whether that belief is true or whether the CoC are basically 21st century Pharisees that live to the letter of the word but not the intention. Several inconsistancies in the Bible make it really hard for me to believe that there is no human error - or human opinions - in the accepted Bible.
Prime example... in Acts 9 Saul and the men with him were all blinded by light but only Saul heard a voice. In Acts 22 the with Saul heard a voice but saw no one - only Saul saw the light/ being.
^ Would a supreme being of God (aka the Holy Spirit) make such an obvious error or is the extent to which the Spirit guided the writers totally make up or exaggerated??
Another point: I was reading the letter by Paul's under study Barnabas. Barnabas asserts that it is utterly sinful for married Christian women to, well, do a "Monica Lewinsky" on their husbands. If everyone that lived in the early church knew this was true but it was never in his NT writings does that mean that all Christian women who have ever done "that" without repentance sinned and went to hell? What exactly is "all scripture?"
I believe there is freedom in reading the text if one can hear what the writer is saying "spiritually". So much of Paul's writings, for example, go from the natural to the spiritual meaning, and a hardliner would get tripped up over what is seen as an unconsistency. There is harmony for those who can "flow" with the message.
Let me restate my quandary since this thread is a little old. Most of my family (and myself) attend Churches of Christ where the NT "Canon" is treated as something where every single word holds 100% authority over what anyone - or any church - can or can't do.
The approved books of the Bible are in the Bible because it a) was a good and useful teaching of God and consistent with the orthodox teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church and b) was indeed created by the said author.
This is NOT a case of what came first - the chicken or the egg. Because the Catholic Church, without a doubt, came before the Bible. The Bible has no Authority on it's own. It does not speak and it does not interpret itself. The Bible required an organization to not only decide what text would be within it's covers, but also to continue to be the Authority to make the ultimate call on the meaning of it's contents. Where does that Authority come from? Why Jesus, Himself! (Matthew 16:13-19) Yes, even the Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)
Come home to the Catholic Church. The ONE Church that Jesus, Himself, began almost 2000 years ago.
There seems to be two schools of thought out there about how to read/ apply the NT. One side believes that all the NT is inspired by the Holy Spirit and should be taken literally (as long as it's in context). Others believe that the writers of the NT sometimes wrote their own beliefs down - for example in same cases Paul says "this is my opinion, but not the law of God". Some say Paul's statement's about women not be allowed to speak in church is his opinion and is not binding.
How do you think the Bible, in particular the NT, should be read???
2 Timothy 3:15 Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
About Paul and women of the Church, I can see his point from what I see going on in the churches even today. Much talk during worship, lack of reverance for God and respect for others who are worshipping. Also about covering the head of a woman was because her hair is her glory. And covering the head gives only glory to God.
About the scriptures being literal or figuratively...Please do not put Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a box. It is evident that the foundation of Christ we should be like minded, however Peter being tired from fishing all night and getting back into the boat because his Lord said so and I can just see Jesus smiling when he looked at Peter hauling in a net full of fish, more than Peter could ever imagine. For one to go beyond the visible into the invisible is from the Spirit of God. And also we know that we can read the same scriptures over and over again and each time there is more of God to be known, eternal.
Good post CD!
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,489,236 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
This is NOT a case of what came first - the chicken or the egg. Because the Catholic Church, without a doubt, came before the Bible. The Bible has no Authority on it's own. It does not speak and it does not interpret itself. The Bible required an organization to not only decide what text would be within it's covers, but also to continue to be the Authority to make the ultimate call on the meaning of it's contents. Where does that Authority come from? Why Jesus, Himself! (Matthew 16:13-19) Yes, even the Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)
Come home to the Catholic Church. The ONE Church that Jesus, Himself, began almost 2000 years ago.
IMO the Catholic Church goes to the other extreme of binding human traditions. If priest were allowed to marry then there never would have been a widespread problem of child molestation. To me that is an example of putting a yoke on people that no one can bear. In addition I'm schooled on early Christianity and it in no way resembles today's Catholic Church.
The other extreme is binding of NT passages that are too vague to bind anything on. Currently my church is in an uproar over whether women should be allowed at "decision meetings" (aka business meetings). Since there is nothing clear in the NT about it I don't see how anyone can take a stand that they can shove down other people's throat. Paul tells women to be silent, but at other times women are present when important issues are discussed.
Another problem I see in the CoC is the way people are against spending treasury money on anything lacking "biblical authority" when the concept of BA on that issue is sketchy at best. My congregation of 90 people (including children) has a $150,000 bank surplus!! Because our surplus hasn't GROWN this year they have decided to not support any new preachers! Apparently we won't "work til Jesus comes" but we will "save til Jesus comes".
IMO the Catholic Church goes to the other extreme of binding human traditions. If priest were allowed to marry then there never would have been a widespread problem of child molestation. To me that is an example of putting a yoke on people that no one can bear. In addition I'm schooled on early Christianity and it in no way resembles today's Catholic Church.
The other extreme is binding of NT passages that are too vague to bind anything on. Currently my church is in an uproar over whether women should be allowed at "decision meetings" (aka business meetings). Since there is nothing clear in the NT about it I don't see how anyone can take a stand that they can shove down other people's throat. Paul tells women to be silent, but at other times women are present when important issues are discussed.
Another problem I see in the CoC is the way people are against spending treasury money on anything lacking "biblical authority" when the concept of BA on that issue is sketchy at best. My congregation of 90 people (including children) has a $150,000 bank surplus!! Because our surplus hasn't GROWN this year they have decided to not support any new preachers! Apparently we won't "work til Jesus comes" but we will "save til Jesus comes".
Then I would change schools. The early Christians baptized babies. They confessed their sins to a priest. They believed that the eucharist was the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. They prayed to the dead. Sounds like the Catholic Church to me.
I don't understand anything in this thread because I do not speak literally nor do I have a literal understanding. Was Jesus "literally" crucified on the cross?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
