I would definitely take the living apostle. I would get him a fake user id and password to this website and keep a tally of how many people from each branch of Christianity disagree with him the most times on the things he posts. I think that would be fascinating.
Well it is sort of a silly question. I mean the NT was not even complete or even unified as a set canon. People usually heard the preached Word of God,hence they could not carry a Bible in hand. Indeed the OT existed,but then again how many 1st century Jews owned a copy?
I was merely trying to say that if you reject Jesus’ method of spreading the word, then most likely you are rejecting the rest of what He accomplished – redemption through His passion and resurrection. If you believe in Jesus as Redeemer, then all that He did in His mission on earth becomes necessary, including using His followers as teachers of His word.
But of course they didn’t just hear their words; they had to obey them! And never were their hearers permitted to interpret either their words or any of the Scriptures for themselves!
Authority comes from God the Father, to Christ, to his apostles:
That would be fascinating!
But surely the guidance of a living apostle would be better than only having a Bible, whose teachings and doctrines can and have been twisted in countless ways? And nowhere in the Bible do we find a single instance of anyone privately interpreting Scripture.
Clearly, the sheep are to fed by their shepherds; never are they * to try to feed themselves!* In other words, the sheep are not to be their own shepherds!
Well, you find me argue for personal interpretation, but that wasn’t your question. Of course, one must also obey.
Yes, my friend, granted. But just to clarify: would you agree that there really isn’t a *single instance * in Scripture of anyone privately interpreting Scripture?
We agree!
But were not the early Christians also obliged to obey, not just the apostles themselves, but those men appointed by the apostles (Timothy, Titus et al) as their shepherds?Excuse my jumping in here, but I just started reading this thread and came to this statement. Where did you ever get the idea that the hearers were not “permitted” to interpret the teachings of the disciples or of Scriptures? They were Jews, weren’t they? That being a given, “interpreting scripture” would have been in their blood! What was Jesus doing at the Temple from a child on? Debating the priests and scholars about the law and its meaning and interpretation. Jesus himself is heard interpreting scripture, starting with the original commandments. What Gospel are you reading?
Working back to front here, of course we have an instance of someone interpreting Scripture, as I said above…Jesus. He did so privately with his disciples and publicly with the scholars and priests, and of course in teaching his followers. I think that is one reason we call it the “New Testament”, because it is a **new teaching **(interpretation) of the Word of God. Even in the OT we find some writers commenting on prior prophets and books, and we could likely pick out some lines from Paul and other epistle authors that reference and interpret OT scripture.
Sure, the Jewish people read Scripture and had it read to them. But the thing is this: we never find them privately interpreting Scripture such that each man, woman and child would decide for himself what he would or would not believe! Or can you bring forth a single instance of this sort of private interpretation among the Jews?
Do you not see any difference between Jesus’ quoting and teaching from the Scriptures, and that of the Jews (or anyone else for that matter)?
Wow, chauncey! It seems you’re saying that both the apostles and the authorized disciples deliberately deviated from Christ’s explicit instructions to them about what they were to preach and teach!
How do you know? And what do you mean by private? If it was “private” would it be recorded, would it be in the Gospels or Epistles? By putting that arbitrary restriction on interpreting scripture you in effect eliminate any possibility of finding examples of “private” interpretation. Do you think Jesus as a boy was the only one in the Temple talking and debating with the priests, Pharisees and scholars of the Law? Do you think that Jesus and his disciples were the only people preaching and teaching from the scriptures in Israel and Judea? In his book Jesus Christ, J.R. Porter talks about the religious environment of the time, and says that “teachers went to the Temple, where they would find a large audience for their messages.” As for other evidence there are volumes and volumes of rabbinic commentary and debate about scriptures, covering centuries of Judaism, from biblical days forward. Would not those be considered “private” interpretations?
You are creating a hierarchy of authority from hindsight. At the time, the words and intrerpretations of Jesus were considered no different than those of other rabbis, scholars and teachers (although some astute listeners did notice a difference). Many of those scholars and temple officials debated and challenged him. Would they have done that if they had not thought he was just another itinerant preacher? Would they have directly challenged God?
Thanks for putting words into my statements that I never used. Such as “deliberately deviated”. Are you a politician; you talk like one?
Just that – private … one’s own personal notion of what Scripture means.
How else then to teach us it was a legitimate activity?
Have you an example of any other Jewish boys doing this?
The only infallible and legitimate teachers!
But only Jesus “taught with authority.”
Notice these were Rabbi’s who were commenting - not the Jewish* laity*. Moreover, commenting is not the same as “private interpretation”.
But far from approving these erring men, Jesus *upbraided them *for being “blind guides,” for corrupting the truth and replacing it with the “traditions of men.”
Not at all! There was a clear distinction, which Jesus himself recognized, between the Jewish leaders of his day and the laity. And Jesus commanded the laity to obey these leaders, even if they were evil! See Matt. 23:1-3
Not if they had any sense!
But you did in fact say, “Whoever heard the Gospel of Mark certainly got a different message than those who heard the Gospel of John. It was obviously a different interpretation coming from different Apostles.” So you are in fact accusing the *very apostles themselves *of deviated from Christ’s instructions! Is this not correct? And no, I’m not a politician.
Yes, heresies have always abounded!
That silly little game has nothing to do with oral tradition!
Actually, the doctrines held by the Roman Church provided the “centralized” standard by which true and false teaching could be discerned and monitored. Listen to what the inspired apostle writes:
Again, one had only to compare them to what the Roman faith, which was “being reported all over the world”!
You think the Church Fathers and councils, in the settling of disputes, represent the same thing as some heretic with his bible picking and choosing what suits him??
St. Paul writes to Timothy:
*I believe it is God, not me, who is the insistent one here:
I’m not the one trying to defend the thesis that error prevailed in Christ’s Church and truth was suppressed!
Boy, you are really desperate to prove that Christ’s Church fell into error from the very beginning! Again, those people who were not on the “same page” as the apostles were heretics.
Well tell me then, just what, according to your private opinion, are the “core teachings” of the Christian faith? And just how are these “core teachings” to be transmitted to others without alteration and error?
I wonder how all those whom Jesus blessed for their faith and insight that was bringing them near the Kingdom of God (including many non-Jews) understood the message and meaning of Jesus when so many others, including His own close disciples, were clueless? Perhaps “private” interpretation that happened to be correct?
I am not following how this response addresses my question…sorry.
My point was not about “boys” in the Temple; I am not sure how you came up with that.
You seem to have this idea that EVERYBODY in Israel and Judea (and beyond) KNEW that Jesus and his disciples were the ONLY legitimate and infallible teachers. No one would have known that at the time. I don’t know from where you get these ideas.The only infallible and legitimate teachers!
At that place and time, but again most people would not have seen or known that. There are several instances where the hearers of Jesus’ teaching either did not understand, questioned it, or outright rejected it. So the authority of Jesus was not obvious.
That is what we have a record of; we would not have a record of what Jewish “laity” was thinking or saying, would we? And I would disagree with you and say that commenting can certainly be considered an opinion or interpretation.
Jesus was talking to the Pharisees and scholars of the Law who were advocating for strict adherence to doctrine and their own interpretation. Hmmm…sounds like what you are doing.
You are totally misreading my point. The hierarchy was not about the Jewish leaders but your view that there already existed a hierarchy of authority with Jesus. You are jumping the gun.
I can see you have this big blind spot, for which you have my condolences. I was not talking about deviating from Christ’s instructions. The writers of the Gospels and of the Epistles (to a lesser extent) were telling a story, and each imbedded their own view and the view of their community and the needs of the audience into their story. That is plainly obvious and has been noted by a plethora of biblical scholars and theologians, of all religions and viewpoints.
Wow! You have gone farther than I would even think of, to accuse Paul and the authors of the Gospels of heresy! Well, I suppose in your narrow view of scripture, all those deviations and variations must be heretical to you. I just view them as the personal mark of the author on their writings.
I would highly recommend you read some of the chapters in the book The Invisible Gorilla, by Chabris and Simons. I think you would see that it has everything to do with the oral transmission of religious traditions and beliefs.
QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS
That is not what I said, but you make a good point. Some of it was considered heretical or there would have been no need for councils, and the ideas that were considered heretical sometimes changed, depending on the council and who was in power at the time. It is an indisputable part of church history. Check it out.
I checked an NAB and a NRSV Bible for that passage and they both use the word “teaching” rather than “doctrine”. The old Catholic Confraternity Edition uses “doctrine” but precedes it with the words “closely followed”, and NRSV the word “observed”. I pick up another hint of “personal interpretation” again.There you go! There’s the standard. There’s the faith handed on perfectly! So it can be done.
Of course it CAN be, but obviously was not in every instance. Again, the early councils are clear evidence of that, as are the many statements and instructions in early church writings which are at variance with one another.
Who said anything about “suppressing truth” or “error prevailing”? It looks like you, who is again accusing me of saying things I didn’t. Would that be considered a sin?
Again you are saying that some Apostles and other disciples were heretics! I would never go that far. And I am not saying that the church “fell into error from the beginning”, but certainly differences of opinion and interpretation existed. Just do a little side by side comparison of the Gospels and you should be able to clearly see that. And then read about the early councils and church fathers and it will be as plain as can be. But apparently denial through ignorance is your preferred way of thinking.
Glad you asked. From Matthew 22:
Luke tells it a little differently and with different speaking parts (hmmm. “private interpretation” perhaps?):
Note the ending line here: “do this and you *will *live.” How can that be, where is the necessity for volumes of doctrines and laws? What about “right belief” and everyone thinking and talking exactly the same way? Isn’t that important too? Not according to Jesus.
QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS
Whose “truth”? God’s or that of some very fallible men?QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS
The Prescription Against Heretics
CHAPTER 16
a controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly, produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain.
CHAPTER 17 Heretics, in fact, do not use but only abuse, Scripture. No common ground between them and you.
Now this heresy of yours does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of it own purpose; and such as it does receive, it receives not in their entirety; but even when it does receive any up to a certain point as entire, it nevertheless perverts even these by the contrivance of diverse interpretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration of its meaning as it is by a corruption of its text. Their vain presumptions must needs refuse to acknowledge the (writings) whereby they are refuted. They rely on those which they have falsely put together, and which they have selected, because their ambiguity. Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy.
Whose tradition, that of Peter or of Paul, of Mark or of John, or the varying beliefs and “traditions” of a multitude of church fathers who did not all agree with one another?
No private interpretation here! Jesus infallibly interpreted the Scriptures to the people; his hearers were not interpreting anything.
Not at all. My point was not who knew Jesus was infallible, but simply that, of all the people “preaching and teaching from the scriptures in Israel and Judea,” Jesus and his apostles alone were the only infallible and legitimate preachers and teachers.
Jesus* wasn’t* condemning the Jewish leaders for their “strict adherence to doctrine,” but rather, for their having deviated from sound doctrine and the true spirit of the Law, for adding many burdensome “traditions of men.”
Sorry if I misunderstood! I was in a major rush in responding to your last post. But just exactly do you mean by a “hierarchy of authority with Jesus”??
But this is not what is meant by “private interpretation”! This is not an example of each and every individual deciding doctrine over the authority and teaching of the Church.
I’m not accusing the apostles themselves of heresy!! I’m simply saying the Scriptures speak of heresies, even in apostolic times, do they not? So heresies have indeed always abounded.
It’s just incredible that anyone would think Oral Tradition works the same way as this nonsense game!
I didn’t interpret anything; the Greek word Paul uses here is Pistis, which encompasses, among other things, the notion of “the religious beliefs of Christians.” See for yourself. Surely you would agree that such religious beliefs include doctrine?
Ah yes, anything but Rome! But hear again the apostle thank God for, and praise the Roman Church:
Making a false agrument. A living apostle wouldnt be contradicting the Word.