How do you interpret passages the Bible?

[billwjb]

Well, can you explain how you, as an individual, are authorized to change the definition of the Catholic religion?

First, I have never claimed to be authorized to change the definition of the Catholic religion.

Second, defining a religion or church is a complex thing. Jesuit theologian Avery Dulles wrote a book in 1972 in which he outlines five or six different “models” of church:
“Institution (including a hierarchy of ministries, to continue Christ’s mission, and reflecting a need for order, unity and consistency of teaching).
Mystical communion (including our mysterious and intimate spiritual union with God and each other through the Body of Christ).
Sacrament (including the responsibility to be, as sacraments are, the visible presence of God on earth).
Herald (including the mission of the People of God, the baptised, to proclaim God’s Word).
Servant (including dialogue with society and assisting persons in a variety of needs).
A Community of Disciples (including Catholics’ sense of always being learners, being formed by the scriptures, acting lovingly, sharing in Jesus’ mission and service, and being co-responsible for the Church’s mission and identity).”

I’m not sure I see any of these ways of looking at the church to be demanding a literal interpretation of scripture on the part of each and every member in lock-step.

 

[NotWorthy]

I looked up the Galileo story on the web. I found this on the BeliefNet website:
“Since the 1633 trial of Galileo, church relations with the world of science have often been strained. Galileo was put on trial by papal authorities for publishing a book defending Copernicus’s theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Copernicus had died nearly a century before, and his “heliocentric” view of the solar system was already generally accepted by astronomers and even by some theologians. Nevertheless, the Vatican insisted Galileo stop discussing the idea; threatened by the Inquisition with torture, he recanted his views and spent the last nine years of his life under the equivalent of house arrest.”

Wow, they got it half-right… go figure.

Capernicus’ heliocentric view was generally accepted by … some theologians, but rejected by none (or hardly none… there’s always the whacko that you can find in the opposition). The Vatican insisted that Galileo quite discussing that the idea dis-proved the Bible. They didn’t refute heliocentrism, just the accusation that heliocentrism proves that the Bible is false.

Does the article mention that Galileo and the Pope were good friends and that “house arrest” meant that Galileo could come and go as he please, often eating dinner with the Pope?

“In October 1992, Cardinal Paul Poupard presented the Pope with the findings of the Galileo study commission, which declared, “From the Galileo case we can draw a lesson which is applicable today in analogous cases which arise in our times and which may arise in the future. It often happens that, beyond two partial points of view which are in contrast, there exists a wider view of things which embraces both and integrates them.” By Vatican standards, this rotund language was an apology. The Pope responded by saying that Galileo’s realizations about the sun and earth must have been divinely inspired: “Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions.” Through its 1992 ceremony, the church finally lifted its edict of Inquisition against Galileo, who went to his grave a devout Catholic, despite the church’s treatment of him.”

I admit it is a better case when the facts are involved.

I would also point out that 15th century (or whatever century it was) “the edict of inquistion” does not equal the 21st century “Inquisition with torture” that is prevalent in today’s mass media portrayal of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

But yes, it is a better case when facts are involved. There is a great talk on what happened in Galileo’s case. I’ll find the link and post it if I can find it.

But I do find it incredible ironic that it was the very same Scientific Community that champions Galileo’s “Cause” (or should I say “hi-jacked cause”) that originally caused the controversy over Galileo’s theory. It had something to do with Galileo being a lowly mathematician and they were scientists. In other words, he wasn’t “one of them”.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m not sure I see any of these ways of looking at the church to be demanding a literal interpretation of scripture on the part of each and every member in lock-step.

Bill, if I may interject on this point. The Nicene Creed states, “We Believe…” Every topic of the Creed (BTW, “Creed” comes from the Latin “Credo” - “I Believe”) begins with “We Believe”. It states what the Church teaches and what the Faithful believe. It’s sorta-kinda one of the those things that make Catholics Catholic, if you know what I mean.

 

[scottm]

First, I have never claimed to be authorized to change the definition of the Catholic religion.
…
Second, defining a religion or church is a complex thing.

Huh? Look at your profile. It has always and still does say “Catholic,” and this at the same time that you very clearly denied the physically resurrection of Jesus.

You’re dodging the issue on purpose. The Nicene Creed defines almost the entire Christian religion. That is common public knowledge. As NotWorthy pointed out, the Creed is very explicit and unambiguous. And you broke the Creed. That is undisputed.

You can’t have it both ways. It’s a violation both of logic and honesty.

 

[NotWorthy]

Huh? Look at your profile. It has always and still does say “Catholic,” and this at the same time that you very clearly denied the physically resurrection of Jesus.

You’re dodging the issue on purpose. The Nicene Creed defines almost the entire Christian religion. That is common public knowledge. As NotWorthy pointed out, the Creed is very explicit and unambiguous. And you broke the Creed. That is undisputed.

You can’t have it both ways. It’s a violation both of logic and honesty.

But it could also simply be a result of poor catechism… that is quite likely, wouldn’t you say? Sadly, its all too common a problem in the Church. What percentage of Catholics don’t believe that there is the Real Presence in the Eucharist? What… 60% or so? Even Higher?!?

So, I would suggest we teach faithfully, but maybe we could try a little more of the “softer touch”, as long as we don’t bend the truth in any way. What do you say, my brother?

 

[scottm]

But it could also simply be a result of poor catechism… that is quite likely, wouldn’t you say? Sadly, its all too common a problem in the Church. What percentage of Catholics don’t believe that there is the Real Presence in the Eucharist? What… 60% or so? Even Higher?!?

So, I would suggest we teach faithfully, but maybe we could try a little more of the “softer touch”, as long as we don’t bend the truth in any way. What do you say, my brother?

Yes. I’ve cooled off now. I’m sorry.

 

[billwjb]

Bill, if I may interject on this point. The Nicene Creed states, “We Believe…” Every topic of the Creed (BTW, “Creed” comes from the Latin “Credo” - “I Believe”) begins with “We Believe”. It states what the Church teaches and what the Faithful believe. It’s sorta-kinda one of the those things that make Catholics Catholic, if you know what I mean.

Thanks, fellas, for the vigorous discussion. I don’t see much point in arguing for a non-literal vs a literal take on either the scriptures or the Creed. My personal need is to not take them literally. My question for you has to do with change. I wouldn’t even want to estimate the huge changes that have occurred since the first century—in knowledge, and in virtually every area of life and life experience, Galileo’s discovery of heliocentricity is just one of many such discoveries. With each one, it would seem to me that a literal reading of scripture would be more and more problematic…
I ran across a book recently entitled Risk-Shaped Discipleship, by Terry Biddington, who is an Anglican priest. In the book, he takes on the reality of change, and shows how Christians can and should embrace it. He revisits stories from the old and new testament to make his point. If it sounds interesting, I hope you will give it a look. I’m sure it can be Googled.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks, fellas, for the vigorous discussion. I don’t see much point in arguing for a non-literal vs a literal take on either the scriptures or the Creed. My personal need is to not take them literally. My question for you has to do with change. I wouldn’t even want to estimate the huge changes that have occurred since the first century—in knowledge, and in virtually every area of life and life experience, Galileo’s discovery of heliocentricity is just one of many such discoveries. With each one, it would seem to me that a literal reading of scripture would be more and more problematic…
I ran across a book recently entitled Risk-Shaped Discipleship, by Terry Biddington, who is an Anglican priest. In the book, he takes on the reality of change, and shows how Christians can and should embrace it. He revisits stories from the old and new testament to make his point. If it sounds interesting, I hope you will give it a look. I’m sure it can be Googled.

Let’s see… the same Anglican Church that has embraced change in its stance on what is sinful… contraception, homosexual behavior, and a few others?

I realize that there are some stories that are not literal in the Bible, but I seriously doubt that Christianity could stand 2000 years if Jesus hadn’t have done all that the Apostles and St. Paul described. The Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension are but three of those “non-negotiables of Christianity”.

 

[scottm]

Thanks, fellas, for the vigorous discussion. I don’t see much point in arguing for a non-literal vs a literal take on either the scriptures or the Creed. My personal need is to not take them literally.

(emphasis mine) The bold-faced part is enough. Whatever words you put before and after it are just frindge, just decoration.

There are some parts of all religions that vary according to need, and this by design. There are other parts of all religions that don’t. You’re supposed to learn the difference before you go changing things according to your personal need. You have no credibility otherwise.

My question for you has to do with change. I wouldn’t even want to estimate the huge changes that have occurred since the first century—in knowledge, and in virtually every area of life and life experience, Galileo’s discovery of heliocentricity is just one of many such discoveries. With each one, it would seem to me that a literal reading of scripture would be more and more problematic…

Dude – that problem was solved about the year 400 in both the East and the West. If you’re sincerely interested in religion you owe it to yourself to check up on the classical hermeneutics.

Ditto NotWorthy on Anglicans. Putting “Anglican” or “Methodist” or “Lutheran” in the same sentence as “you should change like this” doesn’t fly. You might as well get Sarah Palin to do a commercial for President Obama. Zero credibility.

 

[catholictiger]

If the Bible cannot be take literal then what is the point of it? If you can’t take one story within it as literal, then why should you take the idea of a god literal? Like previously mentioned, other books such as Lord of the Rings also presents us with the same or similar ideological concepts as the bible. So what is the difference?

this is not the first time ive said this on this forum but you must interpret scripture in light of

sacred tradition and magisterial teaching (teaching of the church) becuase you run into to many problems if you don’t bring these two in.

 

[billwjb]

Let’s see… the same Anglican Church that has embraced change in its stance on what is sinful… contraception, homosexual behavior, and a few others?

I find such open bigotry both astonishing and repulsive. What right do you have to associate one man’s good name with your list of general problems with the Anglican church, especially when you have no idea what he is saying? It goes right back to Galileo and his pope. Following your logic, one stupid act by one stupid pope must mean that all catholics ever since are stupid.

I realize that there are some stories that are not literal in the Bible, but I seriously doubt that Christianity could stand 2000 years if Jesus hadn’t have done all that the Apostles and St. Paul described. The Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension are but three of those “non-negotiables of Christianity”.

Yeah, well, longevity of a belief doesn’t really guarantee truth. For example, up until the 19th century, everyone (including the science community) believed that the woman served as a receptical for the man’s seed and that she had no active biological role in determining the qualities and attributes of the child. Discovery of the ovum changed that belief overnight, and it sent the Vatican’s 19th century theologians hustling to define the immaculate conception in order for Mary, and thus Jesus to be born without original sin. To their credit, they did react quickly to change.

 

[billwjb]

Ditto NotWorthy on Anglicans. Putting “Anglican” or “Methodist” or “Lutheran” in the same sentence as “you should change like this” doesn’t fly. You might as well get Sarah Palin to do a commercial for President Obama. Zero credibility.

I AM impressed. You have extended NotWorthy’s earlier bigotry to include a much wider swath of humanity, including essentiallly all of mainline christianity EXCEPT for Roman Catholics. Can you give me chapter and verse on where Jesus teaches lessons in bigotry?

 

[scottm]

I AM impressed. You have extended NotWorthy’s earlier bigotry to include a much wider swath of humanity, including essentiallly all of mainline christianity EXCEPT for Roman Catholics. Can you give me chapter and verse on where Jesus teaches lessons in bigotry?

There is no bigotry on my end. I am amazed that you cannot discern the difference between doctrinal beliefs and non-doctrinal beliefs. Absolutely astounded. Wow. And then to think that the immaculate conception had anything to do with the discovery of the ovum – that’s a new level of creativity. Do you write fiction books for a living? Or movie scripts?

You can google for the verse where Jesus said to people standing in front of him “go and sin no more” and where Paul condemns homosexuality in his epistle. The one who wants to change the Apostles’ teachings has the burden of proving that the Apostles were wrong. That’d be you, in this instance. You have to first look up what the Apostlic teaching was on such-and-such, of course. The immaculate conception of Mary, for example, has always been believed. Always. It goes back to the very beginning of the religion.

I’m not a Roman Catholic, by the way. Never have been either.

 

[NotWorthy]

I find such open bigotry both astonishing and repulsive. What right do you have to associate one man’s good name with your list of general problems with the Anglican church, especially when you have no idea what he is saying? It goes right back to Galileo and his pope. Following your logic, one stupid act by one stupid pope must mean that all catholics ever since are stupid.

I’m just saying, I wouldn’t go to the Anglican Church to “embrace change”. I’ll elaborate on the next part of your post.

Yeah, well, longevity of a belief doesn’t really guarantee truth. For example, up until the 19th century, everyone (including the science community) believed that the woman served as a receptical for the man’s seed and that she had no active biological role in determining the qualities and attributes of the child. Discovery of the ovum changed that belief overnight, and it sent the Vatican’s 19th century theologians hustling to define the immaculate conception in order for Mary, and thus Jesus to be born without original sin. To their credit, they did react quickly to change.

Do you SERIOUSLY think the Vatican “discovered” the Immaculate Conception theory in order to counter the discovery of the ovum. Do you realize just how ridiculous this claim is. It speaks volumes for your reasoning skills and even hints at your thoughts of the Catholic Church.

Regarding the changing of the status of the sinfulness of contraception and homosexual activities… it had nothing to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with the church(es) caving into the desires of the flock. The Church either needs to shepherd or not. The Anglican church hasn’t done that, and just like every other church that bends to the will of the “faithful”, the Anglican church has suffered from it.

Now, back to your good Anglican priest and my “open bigotry”. I based this open bigotry on two things:

1. Your totally liberal interpretation of Scripture, followed by your endorsement of this guy.
2. Your acknowledgment that this speaker embraces the changes that relegate Jesus’ miracles into “spiritual-nothing-ness”. (paraphrasing)

Let me guess, the good priest thinks that the feeding of the 5000 was actually Jesus getting everyone to share. Such liberal interpretations smacks of the Jesus Seminar and other tripe.

 

[billwjb]

There is no bigotry on my end. I am amazed that you cannot discern the difference between doctrinal beliefs and non-doctrinal beliefs. Absolutely astounded. Wow. And then to think that the immaculate conception had anything to do with the discovery of the ovum – that’s a new level of creativity. Do you write fiction books for a living? Or movie scripts?

It may take a little imagination to connect the dots, but they are there to be connected. The ovum was discovered in 1827. (That is an amazing fact in its own right – less than 200 years ago!). The Immaculate Conception was officially declared a dogma in 1854. While the tradition goes back many centuries, it did not become official dogma until 1854. Why else would this declaration occur at that time, unless the curia saw trouble coming in the wake of the ovum discovery?

You can google for the verse where Jesus said to people standing in front of him “go and sin no more” and where Paul condemns homosexuality in his epistle. The one who wants to change the Apostles’ teachings has the burden of proving that the Apostles were wrong. That’d be you, in this instance. You have to first look up what the Apostlic teaching was on such-and-such, of course. The immaculate conception of Mary, for example, has always been believed. Always. It goes back to the very beginning of the religion.

I’m not a Roman Catholic, by the way. Never have been either.

If you are not a catholic, it becomes difficult to see why you are so insistent that I not be catholic either. As for your assignments in looking up scripture passages, I might be inclined to give it a shot AFTER you look up and tell me the place where Jesus advocates bigotry and prejudice. I assume it is not the one where he says: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

[billwjb]

Do you SERIOUSLY think the Vatican “discovered” the Immaculate Conception theory in order to counter the discovery of the ovum. Do you realize just how ridiculous this claim is. It speaks volumes for your reasoning skills and even hints at your thoughts of the Catholic Church.

The Vatican didn’t have to discover anything, but they took that opportunity to declare the traditional belief to be official dogma. I’ll ignore your personal attacks on my reasoning skils, etc.

Regarding the changing of the status of the sinfulness of contraception and homosexual activities… it had nothing to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with the church(es) caving into the desires of the flock. The Church either needs to shepherd or not. The Anglican church hasn’t done that, and just like every other church that bends to the will of the “faithful”, the Anglican church has suffered from it.

Exactly why are we talking about the tenets of the Anglican church and its problems? It has to be because you have taken the author I recommended and substituted the entire Anglican church for him. Reasoning powers, indeed.

Now, back to your good Anglican priest and my “open bigotry”. I based this open bigotry on two things:

1. Your totally liberal interpretation of Scripture, followed by your endorsement of this guy.
2. Your acknowledgment that this speaker embraces the changes that relegate Jesus’ miracles into “spiritual-nothing-ness”. (paraphrasing)

Let me guess, the good priest thinks that the feeding of the 5000 was actually Jesus getting everyone to share. Such liberal interpretations smacks of the Jesus Seminar and other tripe.

I never said anything like your number 2 above. That is pure “No, 2” if you know what I mean. I don’t recall mentioning anything about Jesus’ miracles in any context in this entire thread. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster,
How sad that you wish to justify your bigotry against this innocent man based on me and my thoughts. Apparently there is a bigotry against me that is insinuated here also. And no, the author does not attempt to re-interpret the feeding of the 5000. I would call him a fairly mainstream author, with real suggestions for dealing with change of all kinds, His book is very new, and I hope he proves your pre-judgements to be wrong.
In my life experience, bigotry and prejudice often are rooted in fear of some sort. If so, please know that I have never meant to threaten anyone here with my “liberal ideas.”

 

[NotWorthy]

The Vatican didn’t have to discover anything, but they took that opportunity to declare the traditional belief to be official dogma. I’ll ignore your personal attacks on my reasoning skils, etc.

But with your statement in the previous post to ScottM regarding the Vatican doing it because of the discovery of the ovum, you are demonstrating your reasoning skills for all of us here. Either that is bigotry on my part or my own reasoning skills. But let’s see, what proof do you have the Vatican did this as a result of the discovery of the Ovum? Your lack of a solid answer would verify that I am not speaking out of bigotry.

Exactly why are we talking about the tenets of the Anglican church and its problems? It has to be because you have taken the author I recommended and substituted the entire Anglican church for him. Reasoning powers, indeed.

I thought I explained it with my 2 part answer.

I never said anything like your number 2 above. That is pure “No, 2” if you know what I mean. I don’t recall mentioning anything about Jesus’ miracles in any context in this entire thread. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster,

Did you say that Jesus’ death, resurrection, and Ascension were merely “dreams of the Apostles” and such, or was it someone else. If it was someone else, than I am sorry. If not, then that’s what I meant by saying what I said.

How sad that you wish to justify your bigotry against this innocent man based on me and my thoughts. Apparently there is a bigotry against me that is insinuated here also.

Are you sure you are not Liberal? It seems that they are very quick to throw out the “bigotry” label to anyone who disagrees with them.

And no, the author does not attempt to re-interpret the feeding of the 5000. I would call him a fairly mainstream author, with real suggestions for dealing with change of all kinds, His book is very new, and I hope he proves your pre-judgements to be wrong.

In that case, I am sorry. That has been a modern misconception among those that wish to reinterpret the New Testament. The Jesus Seminar is one such cancer that has been traveling around and this is one of the techniques they use. Drives me nuts.

In my life experience, bigotry and prejudice often are rooted in fear of some sort. If so, please know that I have never meant to threaten anyone here with my “liberal ideas.”

Please don’t misinterpret my “bigotry and prejudice” with fear. You’re simply barking up the wrong tree. My only fear with liberal thinkers in the Church is that they will succeed in destroying the Church from within, not that they are correct.

 

[bkayw]

Billwjb,

I ran into this (concerning your disbelief that Christ was taken down from the cross) and thought I’d pass this along.

I was reading through the 613 Jewish Commandments and found this:

Punishment and Restitution

1. That the dead body of an executed criminal shall not remain hanging on the tree over night (Deut. 21:23) (negative).
2. To inter the executed on the day of execution (Deut. 21:23) (affirmative)

See also: jewfaq.org/613.htm

P.S. King Herod’s son was Jewish, not traditional observant (beheading of John)

God Bless

Barb

 

[sinnerdexter]

sinnerdexter,

What if I were to write, “It was raining cats and dogs” and someone were to read that phrase 2000 years from now, what would they think?

One could look just at the words on the page and take them at their literal word for word meaning. Or one could try to understand what type of writing and would ask if it is poetry, biography, journalism, from a diary or part of a technical manual on how to fix a transmission. One could try to understand somthing of the social, political and economic circumstances under which the author wrote and wold ask whether the person was rich or poor, a slave or free, old or young, educated or not. One could also try to understand the customs and mannerisms of the day and the common figures of speech and would ask if this were a common phrase, where else in printed literature this phrase was used and under what context and how the individual words were used in other phrases.

A literalist interpretation of “It was raining cats and dogs” is that animals were falling from the sky. Other’s, upon looking at the contexts under which the passage was written, might rightly conclude that it was coming down in buckets (sorry, couldn’t resist).

Now, some parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally, like Acts and Kings while other parts are not.

My point is that the Bible was written over a period of thousands of years by many differen authors, each of whome had different backgrounds and wrote with different styles. It is one of the most ancient books known to man, written in ancient languages which have been translated to modern English as best as we know how. It’s not as easy as just taking the bible literally word-for-word. If that were the case, then we should all be plucking our eyes out and chopping off our hands like Jesus told us to do.

Your question illustrates why we need an infallible intepreter and what a great gift it is to have been given a Church which is exactly that.

-Tim-

I do agree that the Bible is useless as a text to guide us unless we have some infallible interpreter, such as the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Just as any lawyer will tell you that no law is self-interpreting, but always requires a judge to construe and apply it before its meaning can become clear, so too any theologian should realize that a book of messages alone only communicates ambiguously until we have an interpretive community that can focus its significance.

However, we are then confronted by the question of why the Divine Intelligence would bother giving us a book separate from the institution to interpret it, given that neither can codify the meaning to be transmitted in itself? The authority of the book is frequently emphasized in the book itself, but the connection between Christ investing Peter with authority to create an institution to interpret the book is much looser and less certain, so that undermines the significance of all the assertions in the Bible as being the true message of God.

We then have the further problem that both the book formulating the message of God and the expositors interpreting that message, the Church, are historical institutions plagues with all the contingencies and imperfections that go with any historically instantiated message. The canonical texts constituting the Bible were only assembled arbitrarily under political pressures during the first few centuries of Christianity’s history up through the Council of Nicea. And then, the exposition of the meaning of those texts by the Church was also highly arbitrary and operated under the influence of a variety of purely mundane and crass political pressures.

So the message we are left with still gives us nothing sufficiently secure to rest our entire belief, behavior, and ethics on, often at great cost to our own practical interests and rational insight.

 

[JRKH]

I do agree that the Bible is useless as a text to guide us unless we have some infallible interpreter, such as the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Just as any lawyer will tell you that no law is self-interpreting, but always requires a judge to construe and apply it before its meaning can become clear, so too any theologian should realize that a book of messages alone only communicates ambiguously until we have an interpretive community that can focus its significance.

Agreed. In fact if we were to accept the Bible as the self authenticating Word fo God, we would also have to accept the Koran and the Book of Morman as the Word of God…

However, we are then confronted by the question of why the Divine Intelligence would bother giving us a book separate from the institution to interpret it, given that neither can codify the meaning to be transmitted in itself? The authority of the book is frequently emphasized in the book itself, but the connection between Christ investing Peter with authority to create an institution to interpret the book is much looser and less certain, so that undermines the significance of all the assertions in the Bible as being the true message of God.

God never gave us the book seperate from the institution. The Bible was not seperated from The Catholic Church until the Protestant Reformation. Likewise the idea that the link between Christ and the institution of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is “less certain” is a fallicy that comes FROM that very “reformation”.
The Protestant reformation could not stand if the 1100 year old, universally accepted, definition of Church remained unchanged. So the Protestants taught a new meaning, a new interpretation of Church - The so called “invisible church of all believers” - An interpretation foreign to anyone in the Church, East or West, prior to that.
When I look for the term “Church” in the Gospels I see it used twice. Both times by Christ and both times in connection with granting the authority to “Bind and Loose”…“Whatever”. The first time gives the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, and the second time tells the faithful to “Tell it To The Church” and then abide by the decision of The Church. I don’t see how this is in any way ambiguious. Christ established a visible and authoritative Church.

We then have the further problem that both the book formulating the message of God and the expositors interpreting that message, the Church, are historical institutions plagues with all the contingencies and imperfections that go with any historically instantiated message. The canonical texts constituting the Bible were only assembled arbitrarily under political pressures during the first few centuries of Christianity’s history up through the Council of Nicea. And then, the exposition of the meaning of those texts by the Church was also highly arbitrary and operated under the influence of a variety of purely mundane and crass political pressures.

Yes it is unfortunate that God’s Perfect Church has had it’s share of imperfect leaders.
I don’t agree with you that “political pressures” played any significant role in the selection of the Canon, but that would be a matter well outside the scope of this thread.

So the message we are left with still gives us nothing sufficiently secure to rest our entire belief, behavior, and ethics on, often at great cost to our own practical interests and rational insight.

I think that once you work out the issues for yourself, with teh help of the Holy Spirit, you will no longer believe this.

Peace
James