Do we Christians interpret the Bible consistently?

[icamhif]

Obviously you don’t interpret the Bible consistently, like so many others, “we Christians” being a false assumption of a diverse group of many thousands of different sects, all teaching something different.

What the New Testament testifies is that Christ founded His Catholic Church on St Peter to lead the Apostles, giving him all authority to teach, sanctify and rule, and all other sects or Churches are deficient in His teaching as shown by their errors in teaching faith or morals.

Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History

, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalists and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, Sheehan/Joseph p 89, 93].

The facts of Jesus miracles were recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

You are correct that my interpretation of Scripture is not representative of all of Christedom. But as I pointed out before, interpreting Scripture through the lens of Sacred Church Tradition does not get away from the issue I raised. The Jewish tradition, the Muslim tradition, and the Bahai also claim to have authority to interpret Scripture. So the Sacred Tradition argument, being by itself, leaves us all at an impasse.

 

[icamhif]

Obviously you don’t interpret the Bible consistently, like so many others, “we Christians” being a false assumption of a diverse group of many thousands of different sects, all teaching something different.

What the New Testament testifies is that Christ founded His Catholic Church on St Peter to lead the Apostles, giving him all authority to teach, sanctify and rule, and all other sects or Churches are deficient in His teaching as shown by their errors in teaching faith or morals.

Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History

, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalists and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, Sheehan/Joseph p 89, 93].

The facts of Jesus miracles were recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

Also, I don’t see how your first point is relevant to this thread. I’m not aware of any Christian (Catholic or otherwise) who does not believe that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are Messianic.

As for the rest of your points, the reliability of the New Testament has nothing to do, in and of itself, with the issue of how the Apostles and virtually all Christians interpret the Old Testament.

 

[icamhif]

One of the classic observations to this question is that people generally lie to advance their own position and power: If the Apostles lied, they did a rather horrid job of advancing their position - most of them remained poor and died gruesome deaths with the name of the Lord on their lips.

https://thatfaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/apostles1.jpg

There is good reason to believe that Christ Resurrected, and that the Apostles didn’t die for a lie. However, I won’t go so far as to say that anyone who sees the evidence and doesn’t believe in the Resurrction are either irrational or stubborn. In the end, a measure of faith is still required, but it is a reasonable faith in light of the evidence, not a faith contrary to evidence.

 

[Reuben_J]

Your point is valid, but with one caveat: If I were a non-Christian, I would take the Sacred Tradition argument as a convenient cop-out from putting our Scriptural hermeneutics under fair scrutiny. How would you take it, for example, if a Jew told you that the Old Testament was written by Jews, so it could only be interpreted in light of the Talmud and other Sacred Jewish traditions?

I’m all for Sacred Christian tradition, but I believe that if I’m going to be honest with myself and the Jews, the Old Testament is not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus is the Messiah. At best, it can only defend the Christian faith, for there is no way to know for sure from a purely exegetical standpoint that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 were meant to be Messianic prophecies. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that they are Messianic prophecies. But I believe it for a different reason: because Jesus revealed that to me through His Word in the New Testament, a set of documents that we can reasonably claim to be reliable accounts of Jesus.

Hi. I agree with you. Sometimes I do have similar thought in my own musing. I am only saying Christian belief is not up for debate. It is as it is.

The Jews see the Bible (Old Testaments) differently than us Christians. They do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, we do. But that is beside the point in my opinion.

Honestly I have seen Jewish posters here who would say the same thing – that is not what Isaiah 53 was all about (when we refer to it as prophecies about Jesus). But of course to their credit they knew that we are talking about Christian belief which is different from theirs.

I am fine with that. I am going to allow Muslims to interpret the Bible according to their theological belief. If I should explain it to non-Christians, I am willing to put up that caveat, that this interpretation of the Bible is according to Christian theology and that others may see it differently.

If this is what you are asking, then yes, we are not consistent in that we do not allow others to interpret it differently than us as far as Christian theology is concerned. But this is about Christianity and we have chosen the Old Testaments as part of the Bible which we would interpret according to our understanding. Others may, if there are, who also use the Bible and interpret it differently. We cannot stop them from doing that except for the fact that obviously they are not Christians.

Of course under the present condition, Christians would be confident enough to know that Isaiah 53 points to Jesus and that he quoted Psalm 22 on the cross. Again, question can be asked though I do not think it is strong enough to be used in apologetic, like ‘if it is not about Jesus, who else then that it is speaking about?”

The Jews can easily answer that; I do not know about Muslims, they may just deny that it is speaking about Jesus. As for non-Christians, I have heard, especially atheists saying something like the New Testaments story of Jesus was designed (or concocted) so as to refer to the Old Testament. In other word, the New Testaments is a lie.

Thus in view of the possibilities that I mentioned above, I would come back to my original point - the interpretation of the Bible supports Christian theology. It is not up for debate because Christianity is built upon its interpretation. If one may, others may interpret the Bible differently. But for that we (not with you of course) can debate as to whose argument is stronger. I think that’s all we can do as Christians. That was why in my post I thought your question was not on the right premise simply because it does not work that way.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[Servant19]

Hi. I agree with you. Sometimes I do have similar thought in my own musing. I am only saying Christian belief is not up for debate. It is as it is.

The Jews see the Bible (Old Testaments) differently than us Christians. They do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, we do. But that is beside the point in my opinion.

Honestly I have seen Jewish posters here who would say the same thing – that is not what Isaiah 53 was all about (when we refer to it as prophecies about Jesus). But of course to their credit they knew that we are talking about Christian belief which is different from theirs.

I am fine with that. I am going to allow Muslims to interpret the Bible according to their theological belief. If I should explain it to non-Christians, I am willing to put up that caveat, that this interpretation of the Bible is according to Christian theology and that others may see it differently.

If this is what you are asking, then yes, we are not consistent in that we do not allow others to interpret it differently than us as far as Christian theology is concerned. But this is about Christianity and we have chosen the Old Testaments as part of the Bible which we would interpret according to our understanding. Others may, if there are, who also use the Bible and interpret it differently. We cannot stop them from doing that except for the fact that obviously they are not Christians.

Of course under the present condition, Christians would be confident enough to know that Isaiah 53 points to Jesus and that he quoted Psalm 22 on the cross. Again, question can be asked though I do not think it is strong enough to be used in apologetic, like ‘if it is not about Jesus, who else then that it is speaking about?”

The Jews can easily answer that; I do not know about Muslims, they may just deny that it is speaking about Jesus. As for non-Christians, I have heard, especially atheists saying something like the New Testaments story of Jesus was designed (or concocted) so as to refer to the Old Testament. In other word, the New Testaments is a lie.

Thus in view of the possibilities that I mentioned above, I would come back to my original point - the interpretation of the Bible supports Christian theology. It is not up for debate because Christianity is built upon its interpretation. If one may, others may interpret the Bible differently. But for that we (not with you of course) can debate as to whose argument is stronger. I think that’s all we can do as Christians. That was why in my post I thought your question was not on the right premise simply because it does not work that way.

God bless.

Reuben

The question therefore becomes:

Who has authority to re-interpret previous Scripture OVER the chosen interpreters of said Scripture?

.

 

[Reuben_J]

The question therefore becomes:

Who has authority to re-interpret previous Scripture OVER the chosen interpreters of said Scripture?

.

No, I have answered that already for Christians. Bahais, I am sure have their own answer to that question. That is why when we debate on this, it will be who have the stronger argument to support their answer respectively. If you say it is not Psalm 22 that Jesus quoted while on the cross, then give us your reason, if a debate is required. That’s why belief cannot be forced down one’s throat because ultimately the decision is on the individual to make. This may be one of the reasons that we all seem to be like sale-man eager to make a sale - we will go into any venues and houses to seek out that potential customers.

 

[Servant19]

No, I have answered that already for Christians. Bahais, I am sure have their own answer to that question. That is why when we debate on this, it will be who have the stronger argument to support their answer respectively. If you say it is not Psalm 22 that Jesus quoted while on the cross, then give us your reason, if a debate is required. That’s why belief cannot be forced down one’s throat because ultimately the decision is on the individual to make. This may be one of the reasons that we all seem to be like sale-man eager to make a sale - we will go into any venues and houses to seek out that potential customers.

Indeed you are correct dear brother.

So who has the right to say anything about any religion. We, indeed are not salesmen.

God bless you

.

 

[MartinJordan]

We can stop well before Islam. Jesus is Truth; the final Truth, God’s only Word.

Without Jesus and his Church we wouldn’t have scripture to talk about.

MJ

 

[fasolislithuan]

The question is: Are christian prophetic passages in the OT considered prophetic in jewish tradition? It should explore this aspect, because many passages of OT were seen as prophetic not only by NT writers. Jewish tradition expected the coming of a Messiah in Jesus’ time and they usually read the OT pointing to several passages in a messianic context. So in Jesus’ time this practice (to associate some verses with future event in a messianic context) was perfectly consistent and coherent with a jewish tradition. It belongs to a constatable tradition.Jesus was jewish, He knew the Scriptures and there are a jewish tradition of a suffering Messiah in Jesus’s jewish historical context.

The parallelism with NT and Islam is counter-productive and reveals the differences
No one christian expected the coming of a prophet of God in Muhammed’s time but many jewish expected the coming of a Messiah in Jesus’ time. That’s a crucial aspect. The prophetic comings that NT tradition foretells are some prophets in apocaliptic times just before the second coming of Jesus. The NT warns us the comings of many false prophets, too. The NT was never used by christians to pointing to a future coming of a new prophet as a religious leader . Muhammed was not christian, he didn’t knew the Scriptures and there are not a christian tradition of a leader-prophet in Muhammed’s christian historical context.

 

[icamhif]

Very good answer, fasolislithuan!!

 

[Abu]

Icamhif #1
Now, is Acts 3:22 just a prophecy of Jesus, or is it also a hidden prophecy of Muhammad?

Fancy equating the miracle of St Peter in Acts Chapter 3 and His call for conversion, accompanied by St Peter’s exhortation to repent and accept Jesus Christ, plus his quotation from Deuteronomy 18:, 15, 19 to listen to the Prophet that God will send – with Muhammed!

#40
The Jewish tradition, the Muslim tradition, and the Bahai also claim to have authority to interpret Scripture. So the Sacred Tradition argument, being by itself, leaves us all at an impasse.

Quite irrelevant.

The reality of the Christ as God the Son and founding His Church on St Peter and the twelve has nothing to do with any other religion such as the man-made Muslims and Bahai who do not have the Sacred Scriptures authorized only by Christ’s Catholic Church. As the Christ pointed out re the Jews – “I come not to destroy but to fulfill.”

the reliability of the New Testament has nothing to do, in and of itself, with the issue of how the Apostles and virtually all Christians interpret the Old Testament.

As the Catholic Church is the only creation of Jesus the Christ, and only She has authorized what texts are of the Old and New Testaments, only She can validly proclaim how they are to be interpreted.

No other sect or religious group has any authority from the Christ.

 

[ChristsChurch]

Yes.

And that right there is the reason that the Roman Catholic Church is so big, “tell everyone only we can interpret it so that we can tell em what we want.” Definitely what Jesus and the apostles wanted…

 

[SAVINGRACE]

And that right there is the reason that the Roman Catholic Church is so big, “tell everyone only we can interpret it so that we can tell em what we want.” Definitely what Jesus and the apostles wanted…

Other churches also teach their followers that only they possess the authority to interpret sacred scripture including yours.

Church of Christ do the same.
Anglicans do the same.
Lutherans do the same.
Etc etc etc

Otherwise why bother belonging to those churches?
You believe that church of Christ hold the Truth and possess the authority to interpret Scripture and that by following their Teachings you are going to receive Salvation.

All Protestants truly believe that only their church has the authority to interpret sacred scripture and teaches the Truth otherwise what is the point of belonging to that church?

The onus is on you to provide the philosophical, historical and scriptural evidence to back up that your church possesses that authority given to it by Christ. The Catholic Church has already done that.

The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of confusion. Are all churches/pastors/individuals correct in their interpretation of the bible?

One church teaches ‘once saved, save forever’, another teaches the opposite, one church teaches ‘married gay clergy is okay’ another teaches that ‘married gay clergy is not okay’, one church was established in 2005, another in 1600 another in 1980.

And if you don’t like what your church is teaching you simply leave and establish another church or join another which also believes that it possesses the authority to teach a version of the Truth which is more to your liking.

 

[Servant19]

Other churches also teach their followers that only they possess the authority to interpret sacred scripture including yours.

Church of Christ do the same.
Anglicans do the same.
Lutherans do the same.
Etc etc etc

Otherwise why bother belonging to those churches?
You believe that church of Christ hold the Truth and possess the authority to interpret Scripture and that by following their Teachings you are going to receive Salvation.

All Protestants truly believe that only their church has the authority to interpret sacred scripture and teaches the Truth otherwise what is the point of belonging to that church?

The onus is on you to provide the philosophical, historical and scriptural evidence to back up that your church possesses that authority given to it by Christ. The Catholic Church has already done that.

The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of confusion. Are all churches/pastors/individuals correct in their interpretation of the bible?

One church teaches ‘once saved, save forever’, another teaches the opposite, one church teaches ‘married gay clergy is okay’ another teaches that ‘married gay clergy is not okay’, one church was established in 2005, another in 1600 another in 1980.

And if you don’t like what your church is teaching you simply leave and establish another church or join another which also believes that it possesses the authority to teach a version of the Truth which is more to your liking.

And this is why God must speak again, to establish the essence of the Truth.

.

 

[SteveVH]

And this is why God must speak again, to establish the essence of the Truth.

The Truth has already been spoken, Servant. It is one Word, God’s only Word, Jesus Christ. Why in the world would God have to speak again? One can either accept the Truth or deny it.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

And this is why God must speak again, to establish the essence of the Truth.

.

That hasn’t exactly worked out if bahai is correct.

 

[Servant19]

The Truth has already been spoken, Servant. It is one Word, God’s only Word, Jesus Christ. Why in the world would God have to speak again? One can either accept the Truth or deny it.

So which Christian denominations are denying the Truth?

.

 

[Servant19]

That hasn’t exactly worked out if bahai is correct.

There is a very big difference between God speaking by “wiping the slate clean”, as you were, by establishing a new religion, confirming the Truths that were laid in the past and setting aright the incorrect interpretations which man has clung onto, in comparison to God telling the followers of a religion in the West the “Truth” (e.g Catholicism) and God telling the followers of the same religion, but in the East (e.g Orthodox), a different “Truth”…

.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

As to interpreting the bible consistently, it seems hard to interpret a book like the bible on a consistent manner. But how Christians do interpret it, even if they dissagree with each other, is rather consistent. We all agree for one thing, that when we see the Old testament we are not just seeing a history of Israel, we are seeing Jesus prototyped in those stories.

There is a very big difference between God speaking by “wiping the slate clean”, as you were, by establishing a new religion, confirming the Truths that were laid in the past and setting aright the incorrect interpretations which man has clung onto, in comparison to God telling the followers of a religion in the West the “Truth” (e.g Catholicism) and God telling the followers of the same religion, but in the East (e.g Orthodox), a different “Truth”…

.

Except neither eastern Christians or Western Christians think that God is telling us both our respective theologies on the points we differ. That is a false accusation on your behalf.

I don’t think this particular comment addresses my brief response by the way, or if it does, I am very confused as to how it relates.

 

[Servant19]

As to interpreting the bible consistently, it seems hard to interpret a book like the bible on a consistent manner. But how Christians do interpret it, even if they dissagree with each other, is rather consistent. We all agree for one thing, that when we see the Old testament we are not just seeing a history of Israel, we are seeing Jesus prototyped in those stories.

Except neither eastern Christians or Western Christians think that God is telling us both our respective theologies on the points we differ. That is a false accusation on your behalf.

I don’t think this particular comment addresses my brief response by the way, or if it does, I am very confused as to how it relates.

When there is division within a religion, as is the case with Catholicism and Orthodoxy, one has to utilize ones futile, and petty intelligence to discern one against the other. Namely, one is expected to “choose” between what is Truth and not-Truth based on ones personal “reasoning” ability (however fine tuned that may be)

Since the differences between these two denominations of Christianity is predominantly metaphysical in nature, one cannot really know for sure that they are in correct relationship with God when a decision is made.

It was only until 1995 that the Baha’i phrase "unity in diversity" was coined in Orientale Lumen that a hope for Truth was visualised…

.