Official Bible Interpretation Thread

Because for over a thousand years the Church believed in things like purgatory which offended some people and eventually they wanted to start their own religions so they removed it from the bibles so they could get away without believing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo Declared the current Catholic Canon in AD 393, not Trent as some Protestants claim. Even if you do not accept that one, the 24th Canon of the Council of Carthage declared the same Canon as Trent but in AD 415.

Protestants follow the Jewish canon of the Old Testament (albeit with name changes and no book splitting). One of the criteria is that it must have been composed in Hebrew. Why would it matter to Christians if god inspired Hebrew or Greek writers (it didn't matter for the New Testament).

Did the Jewish population near the end of the first and into the second century AD like the Christian population. Why should we base our faith on decisions of some of those who despised some of our great teachers and early leaders.

From this standpoint it looks like Protestants have omitted books, rather than Catholics adding books (the earliest protestant books often included the deuterocanonical books, and sometimes are still included under the title Apocrypha). The word deuterocanonical comes from the Greek meaning 'belonging to the second canon'.

 

Truly I understand how it appeared to you. I used to feel that there were many types of love just like you do. I discovered that romantic love was not "love", therefore I know only one love.

Nope.
The mind-body problem, i.e. the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen as the central issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body.Other philosophers, however, adopt a non-physicalist position which challenges the notion that the mind is a purely physical construct.. Continued neuroscientific progress has helped to clarify some of these issues. However, they are far from having been resolved, and modern philosophers of mind continue to ask how the subjective qualities and the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states and properties can be explained in naturalistic terms.
I am curious as to why you are defending the idea of romantic love, is it simply because it is me making the issue? What place does romantic love have in the dynamic of loving god with all your heart and loving our brother as ourselves? What is romantic love for? If you are able to discern it's motives you would see that they are entirely selfish.

You like to take the things that are written in the bible and make of them precepts that are taught as doctrine. I do not have a doctrine taught to me by men, to "line up" with. Only what the holy spirit has shown me.
Yes from the beginning it was not so, created male and female, creative principle, not separately man and woman.
You notice that the phrases that you say I mix and match both are in response to questions about marriage. Two different authors relating the same event.

Yes they do. This is the teaching. Jesus restores the relationship of man to his environment as god created him, before the "fall" or dream of separation.

The bible clearly contains two different creation stories, one is god's version, the other is mans. Or rather one is the spiritual version and the other is physical. In one man is created like god in the other man is created unlike god.

Okay, who do you speak for and what do they say?

You can speak till you are blue in the face. It does not make what you say any more true. I ask you why do you begrudge me the holy spirits instruction. The instruction is for me and those who have ears to hear it. Your beliefs sustain you, you are welcome to them.

If we believe without doubt we can cause a mountain to pick itself up and throw itself into the sea. If we believe without doubt that we are made from dust what do you think will happen? The mind is powerful and there are no idle thoughts. Call no man your father. Jesus teaches how to redeem ourselves from the cycle of physical pain in birth and death. No one ascends who has not first descended. In the beginning it was not so. The world was without form and there was no void, nothing empty. We descended from life giving principle into a physical body.

The word became flesh. In the light of consciousness we speak into the world, forms of the flesh, bodies. To those forms we regard as evil the only thing missing from them is our blessing. Just as we create them through our thought and speech, they can be laid aside through forgiveness.
Note, these comments on the power of belief, the power of thoughtful consciousness to cause things to emerge into the world, is not a description of potential but a statement of fact, "truly I say to you."

You have espoused your beliefs, that is all.

Look around. Form changes, content does not. No, I did not say that god did not create the world.

 

So the fact is, regardless of our beliefs, that there is dispute among members who call themselves christian as to what constitutes the bible and the meaning of the things written in it.

If we look upon this fact we can see that this can hardly be the illuminating word of god.
God's word is written in the heart of man.

 

OR

God gave us his word, but man took it and perverted it and struck some out to fit their own novelties.

The Catholic Church is about 1 billion strong of those united in faith.

 

There are tensions between even those billion. There are catholic practitioners that have incorporated local custom and beliefs into their "christian" practice. It is not the seamless entity that we might like to portray.

 

Yes, but what is different is not essential.

Look at what the Pope has recently done for Anglicans. There is now an opportunity to have their own governing system within the Church, they can keep their own customs and liturgy, but fully accept and affirm all of the Church's teachings.

Make concessions and compromoses, but do not give anything essential away.

 

Very well.

 

.

 

What's the same isn't essential either, at least in regards to Catholicism.

 

Come again?

 

Irrelevant.

 

Why is that irrelevent?

Although the rest of the 2 billion christians disagree about any number of issues, there are 1 billion who agree (but whom the rest of the 2 billion disagree with again).

 

The number of sign-ups is irrelevant. I'm a part of a large Catholic community. A huge family (my mother was one of fourteen children). 8 years in a seperate school. Most of my friends and many of my neighbors were Catholic.

In my experience with these hundreds of Catholics I did not observe that their Catholicism had any effect whatsoever on their (and my) behavior. Thievery, illicit sex, violence, drunkeness - every manner of wickedness, everyday disobedience to Church law with nary a thought about it. Most have used the Church only for funerals, (some) marriages and some baptisms since the great walk-away of the late sixties-early seventies (my generation).

That's not a criticism of Catholicism. It's just a qualifier of the billion count. As any formal 'religion' is not worth very much without acceptance of its tenets in one's heart (and practiced accordingly) counting them all as being 'faithful' just because they were baptized as infants seems a little blinkered. I'm even witnessing some taking communion without first confessing - they claim that making a 'private' confession is now acceptable. That can't be right. Not according to my teaching (which was pretty strict).

But even if they were all good Catholics it would still be irrelevant to count them. Muslims apparently are gonna have 2 billion soon. Does that mean their religion wins?

The truest religion is that which brings the will of God into the consciousness of the soul. As much as men in hats throughout history (b.c and a.d.) have laid claim to being the experts at mediating that connection, I think it might be more about the soul's readiness (willingness?) for it. The Holy Spirit teaches who it will, when it will, where it will.

Again, the number of sign-ups is irrelevant.

 

Because that is what the Bible says. (Matthew 12:40; Matthew 17:23; Luke 24:46; Mark 9:31)

No one was with him those three days, he was dead.

Please show me in the Bible where he appeared to anyone for those three days.

Again with the my "interpretation", what is to interpret? The Bible is pretty simple and straight forward on the subject of death, all you have to do is believe what it says.

 

Souls are conscious, just as long as it is alive. Soul could be translated as breather and when it stops breathing it is no longer a soul and thus no longer has consciousness.

 

This is also written, verily I say to you today you will be with me in paradise.
What is written describes the state of the physical body for three days. The reason the body is dead is because it was to god that he had commended his spirit.

Why, there is no record where it is written that he appeared during those three days. His body was dead his spirit with his father. He appeared glorified to his disciples after three days. It is the spirit that animates the body. the spirit does not remain with the body that is why the body dies. His body was dead and it was reanimated, that is what is miraculous about it.

Evidently not.

 

Thanks,

I'd actually agree with you on basically everything you've said. I was just looking for a better explanation than one word (even though I'ev done that in the past as well).

Re: Communion without confession.
What Canon Law does say is that it is illicit and another grave sin to receive Holy Communion without first confessing any known mortal sins to a priest. Venial sins are another matter, while it is good practice to confess these as well, it is not technically necessary because the penitential right at the beginning of Mass (I have sinned through my own fault, my own fault, my most grievous fault) is sufficient to clear the soul of any venial sin.

Re: Walking away
I'd chalk some of this up to changing culture, but I'd also chalk a lot of it up to what happened to the Church post Vat2 (and a little prior as well). Keep in mind I am a fairly recent convert (a few years) so I never experienced it first hand. I think the focus shifted a lot to mainly the love of god and a lot of touchy feeling type sermons and homilies and the reality of evil, sin, and the role the Church should play in ones life was downplayed. The necessity for Confession was lost, and confession times were cut to maybe on 1/2 hour per week (the argument was that it was low to begin with, but now there is really no chance for it to grow without broader times). There are a number of problems in the Church currently, and I think Papa Ben 16 is doing a lot to fix them. In the English world, this major change I think is going to be the introduction of a new English translation (coming USA Advent 2011...who knows for Canada). The current translation is more of a colloquial paraphrase than a translation from the Latin (the way we worship dictates in some regards what we believe. If mass is reverent, it shows we beleive God truly is in the species of the bread and wine. If we eat Cheerios, what message does that send?). Benedict has also freed up the use of the older form of the Mass introducing a whole lot more people (especially young people) to this important tradition of the Church.

 

Translation of what?

 

Sorry, I meant to specify the translation of the Mass.

Here is an example of the change:
Ecce Agnus Dei


Priest: This is the Lamb of God
who takes away
the sins of the world.
Happy are those who are called
to his supper.

All: Lord, I am not worthy
to receive you,
but only say the word
and I shall be healed.

Changes to:

Priest: Behold the Lamb of God,
behold him who takes away
the sins of the world.
Blessed are those called
to the supper of the Lamb.

All: Lord, I am not worthy
that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.


The new translation reflects more accurately what the Latin (which is the official and default text) does say, it also reflects the scriptural nature of the Mass (Banquet of the Lamb is from Revelation, the Come under my roof, is from Luke).

It also uses different languages which highlights how the Mass isn't just any other experience, but is different from mundane things. It is sacred, and so used sacred language.

Most importantly, the new translation reflects better what Catholics believe. The Nicene Creed changes from "The only Son of God" to "The only Begotten Son of God", amongst other changes.

 

Fair enough but perhaps you would be so good as to point out exactly how I have misinterpreted those scriptures. How I have in anyway taken them out of context and used them to say something that they did not originally say in context? Something, by the way, that you do quite often.

The Bible says that we are not to learn all things. For instance we are to be babes as to badness.

And because it was "canonized by fearful men" that makes what was included and that was "written by inspired men", no longer inspired?

So you say but they look like they are the same story and are in harmony with each other and not contradicting each other.

But why would God see that and call it good?

Likeness of god? The god of this world?

I'll take as you have no proof for what you are saying.

Nice dodge.

Funny thing is that it takes a lot of your assumptions to even come close to saying it is talking about "visionary states of consciousness" or "altered states of consciousness", whereas just believing that it just talking about prayer without the need for "visionary states of consciousness" or "altered states of consciousness" is pretty straight forward and with out the need for those assumptions.

Since you're the one talking about the "visionary state", please show me in the Bible where everyone who performs a miracle needs to enter into a "visionary state" to do it?

What? You're kidding right? Are you really saying that Jesus was not the Christ?

If you don't mind, what scripture is this, so it can be looked up in context.

No they don't.

No, he doesn't, even Jesus doesn't believe that.

Yes, that is what the ridiculers of the truth are saying. Why? Do you agree with them?