Struggling to be at peace with the Sacred Scriptures

[MH84]

I recently came across a book titled Bible Basics by Duncan Heaster in the library. I looked at the book before and realised it was based on Christadelphian ideas.

Anyway, today I noticed they were selling it for a dollar. I bought it so that know one else would be tricked by this seemingly neutral Bible study book. I wasn’t sure what to do with it immediately; I was thinking about tearing it down the spine and throwing it. But then I decided I would have a look at it again.

Now, I have some questions I would like to ask the Catholic faithful because a lot of scriptural points make sense to me, particularly when it comes to verses that are for me not as clear. Please help!

I’ll pick some of there “points” out for you:

pg. 246-247. "One of the clearest summaries of the relationship between God and Jesus is found in1 Tim. 2:5: ‘There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus’. Reflection upon the highlighted words leads to the following conclusions.

• …In addition…there is the mediator, the man Christ Jesus…That word ‘and’ indicates a difference between Christ and God."
• "As Christ is the ‘mediator’ it means that he is the go-between. A mediator between sinful man and sinless God cannot be sinless God Himself; it had to be a sinless man, of sinful human nature. ‘The man Christ Jesus’ leaves us no doubt as to the correctness of this explanation. Even though he was writing after the ascension of Jesus, Paul does not speak of ‘the God Christ Jesus.’

pg 247. …"In line with this, there are a number of obvious differences between God and Jesus…which clearly show that Jesus wasn’t God himself.

pg 247.
“God:
God cannot be tempted (James 1:13)
God cannot die - He is immortal by nature (Ps.90:2; 1 Tim 6:16)
God cannot be seen by men (1 Tim 6:16; Ex. 33:20)”

pg 248. "It is unthinkable that God had any possibilty of sinning. We have shown that the seed of David promised in 2 Sam. 7:12-16 was definately Christ. Verse 14 speaks of Christ’s possibilty of sinning: “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him.”

pg. 252. " Becasue of human nature, Jesus was mortal as we are. In view of this, Jesus needed tobe saved from death by God. Intensely recognising this, Jesus 'offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him (God) that was able to save him from death, and was heard for his piety" (Heb. 5:7 A.V. mg.). The fact that Christ had to plead with God to save him from death rules out any possibilty of him being God in person. After Christ’s ressurection, death had ‘no more dominion over him’ (Rom. 6:9), implying that beforehand it did.

pg. 253 “Christ’s prayers to God for salvation was heard; he was heard because of his personal spirituality, not becasue of his place in a ‘trinity’ (Heb 5:7). That God raised Jesus and glorified him with immortality is a major New Testament theme.”

…“By the very meaning of the word, a being can have only one nature.”

pg. 254. “God the Father is often stated to be Christ’s God. The fact that God is described as ‘the God and Fatehr of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1Pet.1:3; Eph. 1:17) even after Christ’s ascension to heaven, shows that this is now their relationship, as it was during Christ’s mortal life. It is sometimes argued by trinitarians that Christ is only spoken of as less than God during his life on earth. The New Testasment letters were written some years after Christ ascended to heaven, yet God is spoken of as Christ’s God and Father. Jesus still treats the Father as his God.”

pg 257. “Finally, a point concerning the phrase ‘being in the form of God’. The Greek word translated ‘being’ does not mean ‘being originally, from eternity’. Acts 7;55 speaks of Stephen ‘being full of the Holy Spirit’. He was full of the Holy Spirit then and had been for some time before, but he had not always been full of it…”

What do you think? I appreciate your reading this long post.

 

[Melanie01]

…ummmm, the Christadelphians have some very odd notions…one of the problems of reading non-Catholic literature, take your concerns to a good Catholic Catechism or better still to your priest who will advise you.

Protestant = heresy

 

[Zooey]

Well…I think you made a good decision to get the book away from other people. But I think your first impulse–to put it in the trash–would have been better than reading it.Seriously.

The problem with the Christadelphians (who are not Christian), is that, like many other cults, they have a way of rending the Scriptures. The example there about the word “and”…You would need a better scholar than me, to tell you the exact words in the original. But I do know, that the whole point of this passage is to say, that Christ is God and Man. Not to pull the two apart…
You have to think of a deep chasm over a mountain stream. It is too big to cross. You need a bridge with one “foot” as it were, on each side, in order to cross over. If the bridge stopped short of one side, what good would it be, but to let you down??
In the same way, Jesus Christ is God, but through His birth as a Man, He is able to bridge the gap, as it were, between God and all of us. That’s what a mediator does. If Jesus were just a mam, he couldn’t mediate btween God & us, because He wouldn’t be one of us. He wouldn’t have a foot on each side of that great gap.

I hope that makes sense, & I hope it helps a little bit. But please, get that book into the garbage. It is doing to you, what it was intended to do: mess with your head. As I said before, I am glad you didn’t leave it there for someone else to be caught up in it, but I think that now, you would do well, to get it out of your own house, before it mixes you up any more than it all ready has.
And when it is gone, come back & ask any questions, with none of the Christadelphian poison messing with your mind.
God bless you, & I hope this helps a little.

 

[MH84]

I don’t trust them either. But because the Bible is inerrant, we should still be able to answer each point that was raised. There are more queries raised in the book, but if someone could address these first that would be great.

I don’t think the Scriptures were meant to send mixed messages to those who follow the Faith. I wish that when I read the Scriptures I would be able to just read them without having the difficulties, which need to be overcome.

I mean a non-informed person, can have pick up ‘Bible Basics’ and think, “yeah, that makes sense, Jesus does say that” etc.

I know the Bible is meant to be read with the Church teachings, but shouldn’t the teachings be also explicitly in the Bible too (which to an extent they are, but then I read other sections too like the ones above, which gets me thinking again…).

 

[FightingFat]

Now, I have some questions I would like to ask the Catholic faithful because a lot of scriptural points make sense to me, particularly when it comes to verses that are for me not as clear. Please help!

No problem. But first, bear in mind what we know. Christadelphians emerged during the Radical Reformation, particularly among the Socinians and other early Unitarians. The Restoration movement and Adventist movements in the mid-19th century resulted in small groups in many parts of the United Kingdom and North America. They have a faith based on the Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings in which the Catholic Church recognises herself. They are an expression of Catholicism. Tertullian thought that heretics should not have access to Sacred Scripture because of the danger of mis-interpretation. We know this is the case; we know that Sola Scriptura leads only to schism.

Revelation is the first and essential idea of Christianity. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father to enable us to a realisation of His definitive Word in the Son . Through the incarnation, God becomes, in a sense, almost poor for us and this is the key to divine revelation. This divine decision must remain active, fruitful and alive in the world until the parousia . The Divine decision’s perpetuation must mean the Church. I believe that Sacred Scripture is a written record of the revelation of God to men in history. It is itself a product of Tradition. Tradition comes before and during the writing of Sacred Scripture, not just after. The Gospels disclose several layers of tradition; oral (preaching), liturgical (prayer formulae), narrative (recollection of important events, especially Jesus’ passion), and so on.

This process demonstrates continuity in the way God communicates to man in time; an over-arching scheme. Man has a habit of looking for supernatural evidence for God, when God has condescended to communicate himself to man in a very human way, making himself real in the person of Christ and utilising human modes of communication and instituting the sacraments as understandable forms of tangible contact with Him. God has not used these methods of communicating himself to us in isolation; instead he chooses a synthesis of media, infusing the message in faith, liturgy, writings, human recollection, group affiliation, handing on of information so that the idea becomes like a rope, made of many strands. These strands bound together become strong in unity and each offers the message from its own unique perspective. This is how we must consider Sacred Scripture. Not in isolation, finite and containing everything we need to know, but as part of a rich tradition that plays an essential elemental role in the grand story of man’s journey towards God in history.

Before we go any further, read the first few chapters of Dei Verbum so you know exactly what Catholics believe about the way God has Revealed Himself to us.

 

[teevee]

Let’s for a moment put to one side that this is a Christadelphian Bible study. That way we can look at the points themselves.

First of all, the primary scriptural source for Christians is the Gospels. Now I may have missed something but it seems to me that there isn’t one reference in the first posting to a Gospel source.

Gospel sources, especially the sayings of Jesus Himself would make some of the points hard to sustain. Try, to begin with, “He who has seen me has see the Father,” , the confession of Thomas and Jesus’ reply, “Before Abraham was I am”, John’s prologue etc. etc. I have a Strong’s Concordance which has one whole page of similar quotations from Jesus Himself.

Outside of the Gospels we are dealing with e.g Paul’s and others attempts to explain the Mystery of Jesus to people who had even less an idea than he did in language that they would understand, but the primary source is Jesus Himself, not Paul, not James, not Peter …

MH, Go back and read the Gospels. You will probably find that your doubts are eased considerably.

 

[Zooey]

I mean a non-informed person, can have pick up ‘Bible Basics’ and think, “yeah, that makes sense, Jesus does say that” etc.

Yes, that is the problem. That same book is in several nearby libraries, & short of checking it out & “losing” it…which would be stealing, of course…I can’t do a thing about it.
But when I see that kind of thing in thrift shops or yard sales, or whatever, I buy them too. I don’t want anyone to be converted to some sect, when I could have stopped it, by spending a couple of dollars.
(I actually got a copy of the Book of Mormon that way, & for a while, the Mormon missionaries were coming here, & I kept them busy, when they could have been working on somebody who hadn’t read their book, & didn’t know how far off it is…They finally have caught on, & avoid me).
The trouble is, of course, that it is so easy to get upset & confused by some of this stuff…Been there. That’s why I have decided to justit use the way that God intended: to prop up a busted leg on the furniture, or to plug up a hole in the attic floor!!

 

[FightingFat]

I’ll pick some of there “points” out for you:

pg. 246-247. "One of the clearest summaries of the relationship between God and Jesus is found in1 Tim. 2:5: ‘There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus’. Reflection upon the highlighted words leads to the following conclusions.

• …In addition…there is the mediator, the man Christ Jesus…That word ‘and’ indicates a difference between Christ and God."
• "As Christ is the ‘mediator’ it means that he is the go-between. A mediator between sinful man and sinless God cannot be sinless God Himself; it had to be a sinless man, of sinful human nature. ‘The man Christ Jesus’ leaves us no doubt as to the correctness of this explanation. Even though he was writing after the ascension of Jesus, Paul does not speak of ‘the God Christ Jesus.’

Like all these things, there is a certain amount of Christian truth mixed up with the other stuff. It amazes me where they get their authority from about these things. Some bloke seems to come up with a whole new exegesis and loads of people say “OH yeah!” and just drop two thousand years orthodoxy and go off in a completely new direction!

Christ is fully man and fully God this is the drama of Judaism; they didn’t expect God to become man. They did not think that He could deliver Himself to be crucified and rise from the dead. But Jesus is the (Hypostatic) union of God and man. This is not a promotion of man’s nature or some sort of mixing of natures. The Eternal Son who is God, emptied Himself out to accept fully his humanity. Jesus is the intersection of two searches, our reaching out to God and God’s reaching out to his creation. Jesus shows us who God is and who we are. He knew he was God, but in a way that allowed for a growing realisation: he had to live a truly human existence, His human will had to be seperate from his divine will or he would have been nothing more than a puppet for the divinity. The riddles of sorrow and death become meaningful in Christ.

If you want to know more, read about the first Council of Nicea in 325 which promulgated the Nicean Creed against this heresy of Arius. Anything by Norman Tanner SJ is authoratative on this subject.

Christ’s divinity is clearly prefigured in Scripture: Luke 1:26-38, Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34 & 13:31-17:26; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:13.

pg 247. …"In line with this, there are a number of obvious differences between God and Jesus…which clearly show that Jesus wasn’t God himself.

pg 247.
“God:
God cannot be tempted (James 1:13)
God cannot die - He is immortal by nature (Ps.90:2; 1 Tim 6:16)
God cannot be seen by men (1 Tim 6:16; Ex. 33:20)”

This demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of Scripture and comes back to the question of who has the authority to interpret Scripture addressed at Trent, Vatican I and developed beautifully in Dei Verbum at Vatican II.

pg 248. "It is unthinkable that God had any possibilty of sinning. We have shown that the seed of David promised in 2 Sam. 7:12-16 was definately Christ. Verse 14 speaks of Christ’s possibilty of sinning: “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him.”

See next post…

 

[FightingFat]

The Prophet is offering an idea of Christ that is being revealed to him slowly, intermittantly at first. A prophetic perception that will coalesce in the reality of the man-God Jesus Christ. Sacred Scripture has both a divine AND human authorship. Scripture cannot be read in isolation, but must be taken as a whole:
35. What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use.

1. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East. The investigation, carried out, on this point, during the past forty or fifty years with greater care and diligence than ever before, has more clearly shown what forms of expression were used in those far off times, whether in poetic description or in the formulation of laws and rules of life or in recording the facts and events of history. The same inquiry has also shown the special preeminence of the people of Israel among all the other ancient nations of the East in their mode of compiling history, both by reason of its antiquity and by reasons of the faithful record of the events; qualities which may well be attributed to the gift of divine inspiration and to the peculiar religious purpose of biblical history.
   This passage is from Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu on biblical studies, issued in 1943 (Paragraphs 35-36) which represents a recognition of the importance of the critical method for the study of the Bible by an official Church body. It stresses how each book must be read in the context of the whole collection of sacred writings, and be seen as part of an ever-growing faith (c.f. DV § 11).

 

[FightingFat]

Also, did you read this? catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp

 

[MH84]

Thanks for your responses. I have read Dei Verbum a few months ago. However, can someone address the issues individually. It’s all well and good to remember to read the whole of Scripture in context, but it shouldn’t rule out interpreting the verses as well.

Is it a heretical to think that perhaps the writers of the Gospel were not fully aware of the ‘level of divinity’ of Christ. I asked a question relating to this from a previous link, and although content previously with the reponses, I don’t think that is the best explanation. Read below:

Hi
what is the Catholic view on why St. Paul during his greetings in one or more of his letters to the different communities used this or similar phrase:

“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” (catholic-resources website)

As you know this is a greeting the priest can use at Mass.

Does “God” refer to “Father”? And why didn’t he use “Father”?
Thanks

Probably the best reply to the above post:

I thought the original post was answered. When talking of the Trinity, “God” is "God, the Father’. It’s synonymous.

Why? I don’t know, but it’s now tradition.

Is the above response an official Catholic position, or are we to remember that the speakers and writers were refer to Jesus in His human form. But after they saw/heard Him resurrect to glory, why didn’t they speak more about Him being the omnipotent creator with the Father and Holy Spirit.

Further, which Catholic these days speak of Jesus merely as servant or prophet?

I look foward to your responses. I know you have them.

 

[MH84]

Come on guys don’t leave me hanging

 

[FightingFat]

I’m finding it difficult to ascertain what exactly you are questioning here and what exactly you are driving at. It seems to be about Christ’s divinity? Is that right?

It’s all well and good to remember to read the whole of Scripture in context, but it shouldn’t rule out interpreting the verses as well.

I would disagree. The Catholic faith as presented in the Catechism is an organic synthesis. Revelation in Scripture is part of the Apostolic Tradition that makes up that Revelation. It is difficult to disect it if you are not considering it in all its contexts. I hoped the quote from *Divino Afflante Spiritu *would illustrate the essential nature of that in the context of not just other versus of Scripture, but also in the context of what the author’s influences were and what he was trying to get across.

Is it a heretical to think that perhaps the writers of the Gospel were not fully aware of the ‘level of divinity’ of Christ.

As an aspiring scholarly, it seems whether it is heretical or not is secondary to answering the question. I would say they were aware of Christ’s divinity from what I have read. Could I recommend a book? Bad, Mad or God by Canon John Redford (STL, LSS DD) he is a rare breed- a Scripture expert and an expert in hermenuetics. In BMG he sets out to proove Christ’s divinity from the Gospel…And does so rather convincingly!

Is the above response an official Catholic position, or are we to remember that the speakers and writers were refer to Jesus in His human form.

St. Paul is clearly referring to Jesus as part of the Trinity that is God. I really don’t see any ambiguity about this passage at all.

But after they saw/heard Him resurrect to glory, why didn’t they speak more about Him being the omnipotent creator with the Father and Holy Spirit.

They did! They went around preaching it to such an extent that, two thousand years later, there are more than 2 billion Christians in the world!!

 

[MH84]

I’m finding it difficult to ascertain what exactly you are questioning here and what exactly you are driving at. It seems to be about Christ’s divinity? Is that right?

I would disagree. The Catholic faith as presented in the Catechism is an organic synthesis. Revelation in Scripture is part of the Apostolic Tradition that makes up that Revelation. It is difficult to disect it if you are not considering it in all its contexts. I hoped the quote from *Divino Afflante Spiritu *would illustrate the essential nature of that in the context of not just other versus of Scripture, but also in the context of what the author’s influences were and what he was trying to get across.

As an aspiring scholarly, it seems whether it is heretical or not is secondary to answering the question. I would say they were aware of Christ’s divinity from what I have read. Could I recommend a book? Bad, Mad or God by Canon John Redford (STL, LSS DD) he is a rare breed- a Scripture expert and an expert in hermenuetics. In BMG he sets out to proove Christ’s divinity from the Gospel…And does so rather convincingly!

St. Paul is clearly referring to Jesus as part of the Trinity that is God. I really don’t see any ambiguity about this passage at all.

They did! They went around preaching it to such an extent that, two thousand years later, there are more than 2 billion Christians in the world!!

The book looks interesting, but I am looking for Scriptural references to the quotes I brought up from Scripture.

I know there are many Christians, but sadly we all have different opinions and views about Christianity don’t we?

St. Paul is clearly referring to Jesus as part of the Trinity that is God. I really don’t see any ambiguity about this passage at all.

Show me in the Scriptures then.

Also, no one has really answered this question properly yet:

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (catholic-resources website)
As you know this is a greeting the priest can use at Mass.

**Does “God” refer to “Father”? And why didn’t he use “Father”? **

It sounds like St. Paul at that moment could have been distinguishing Jesus and the Holy Spirit from God. From the letters I have read so far, I can’t rememeber St. Paul ever talk about the equality of Persons of the Trinity? Please refer me to those passages anywhere where he does?

 

[MH84]

If St. James and St. Paul knew Jesus was fully and truly God at the time of their Epistles to the Christians (us) why did they say:

God cannot be tempted (James 1:13)

In the presence of God who gives life to all things,** and **of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (1 Tim 6:14-16)

without clarifying further

 

[MH84]

What was St. Paul’s purpose in this verse.
**[3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. **

Wouldn’t this have confused new converts that Jesus is not fully equal to God.

The same with these verses in bold:
23] But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
[24] Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
[25] For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
[26] The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
**[27] “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.
[28] When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one. **

 

[FightingFat]

I’ll check out some books when I get home from the office and see if they shed any light on this verses for you!

 

[mrteachersir]

What was St. Paul’s purpose in this verse.
**[3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. **

Wouldn’t this have confused new converts that Jesus is not fully equal to God.

What is Paul comparing? He is comparing the relationship between a man and woman, he is outlining how Christian families should be be structured: a father (centered on Christ) loving his wife (as Christ loves His Church, cf 1 Peter) and guiding the familiy to salvation (as the Father is ultimately the guiding force behind the Logos becoming man).

Paul is writing only what he feels (as a teacher and a pastor) his congregation needs. He is addressing specific issues that need addressed. This is why the whole of Scripture must be taken instead of bits and pieces…this is also why we must follow the Ethiopian in Acts who asked Phillip (an Apostle) to interpret Scripture for him (apparently, it wasn’t that plain to him), and why St. Peter warns us in 2 Peter 1:20: “No prophesy of Scripture is made from individual interpretation.” and again in 2 Peter 3:15-16: “And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

 

[FightingFat]

What was St. Paul’s purpose in this verse.
**[3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. **

Wouldn’t this have confused new converts that Jesus is not fully equal to God.

OK here’s what I got: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary states: 3. head Gk kephale never connotes authority or superiority “source” is the only appropriate meaning here, the source of every person’s new being is Christ: Paul evokes the role of Christ in the new creation (1 Cor 5:17) The general context of Paul’s thought demands that aner be understood generically. The source of every woman’s being is man. The source of Christ’s being is God. For Paul, Christ is the one who is sent (Gal 4:4-5; Rom 8:3) in view of a saving mission (1Thess 1:10; Gal 2:20; Rom 8:29,32); it is a question of his being as Saviour.

Fuller’s New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (New York, 1975) has it: 3. Here we have a schematic presentation of the ideal relationship of mankind to God. Christ as man is subject to the Father; all males are subject to Christ (cf Phil 2:5-11 which contains an early hymn of praise); women are subject to men according to the order of creation (cf Ephesians 5:22 f). Perhaps the part of the v concerning women’s role can be understood as being competely valid only under the social conditions of the times. The Gr. allows the interpretation that Paul is concerned directly with a husband and wife relationship (RSV).

I know there are many Christians, but sadly we all have different opinions and views about Christianity don’t we?

This is your problem I think. 1.1 billion Catholics, 1 billion everything else. Personal interpretation of the Bible as your sole source of authority leads to schism. Historical fact. If you want to know what the Bible says- take a course in Catholic Scripture Study; buy the books I’ve quoted from above and trust in the Tradition of two thousand years. Think about the Canon. How it came about- the Church recognises herself in the Sacred texts, She recognises them as being about Her; containing the same fides quae.

I hope this helps and will inspire you to look up the other passages for yourself. If you want me to post answers for every quote I will do that too! To be honest, once I’ve put the kids to bed I think I’ll sit here and look them up for myself, so if I have the inclination, I might post out what I find here anyway.

Peace be with you!

 

[MH84]

This is your problem I think. 1.1 billion Catholics, 1 billion everything else. Personal interpretation of the Bible as your sole source of authority leads to schism. Historical fact. If you want to know what the Bible says- take a course in Catholic Scripture Study; buy the books I’ve quoted from above and trust in the Tradition of two thousand years. Think about the Canon. How it came about- the Church recognises herself in the Sacred texts, She recognises them as being about Her; containing the same fides quae.

These are more like it! Thanks all, especially Fighting Fat who has wrote a book of information. I need to read them more carefully later.

I think I am insecure because we as Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible. But now that I have found my way around the Bible better over the last couple of years, and reading various texts and articles from different sources, I noticed some verses which seemed contradictory to the dogma regarding the equality of Christ with His Father (and the Holy Spirit) and the Blessed Trinity.

I guess where I have been concerned since I read some of the “Bible Basics” book is that reading it from their perspective they do have a case for a lot of their claims, because it is more ‘easier’ to see it from their point of view, for me anyway. I have to admit, if I read the Gospels for myself without my Catholic belief, I don’t think I would have worked out from Jesus that He is the Second Person of the Divine Trinity, and that the disciples ever thought (or grasped) that Jesus was fully and immeasurably divine, except that He was more than an ordinary man and He is Son of God. I don’t have much trouble understanding that Jesus is the Son of God, I just have had difficulty believing without a shadow of a doubt that He is God the Son, especially with all the other theories about Him being thrown around.

I tend to find comfort again with my Faith over time with God’s help, but then coming across certain parts of the New Testament discourages me again. I mean the Scriptures are inspired by God, but that is not enough is it? We tend to rely on the interpretations of others in the Church from St. Thomas Aquinas through to Scott Hahn. What about those of us who end up ignorantly relying on commentary from those with heretic tendecies, mainly because we cannot read the Bible for ourselves. We have to shop around for orthodoxy or turn to the Catechism. But what about the hundreds of years the Catecism wasn’t available for the faithful, how did the average layman go about understanding the Scriptures?

I have found a bit of peace from watching a show about the dangers of fundamentalism by Mike Dowd(?) recently where the underlying theme is the danger of politics and a strictly literal interpretation of sacred texts. But if we are not careful, we as individuals can tend to read what we want to read, if you know what I mean; we can read more into the text than what the author may have intended. Or what I sense, (but may not be true) is that the learned may disguise unclear texts by talking them away with complicated and scholarly language to suit their opinion. The average person may also tend to believe the interpretations as it suits their beliefs, personality etc. and reject others, even by the same author or sources. Further, where do we say this verse needs interpretation but this clearly doesn’t; isn’t it often at the individual reader’s discretion.

At the end of the day, previous multitudes over two thousand years have read the bible including the learned saints and they truly believe Jesus is fully divine like His Father. And we can trace our spiritual history to St. Peter and the disciples who knew Jesus quite well I’m sure! and they didn’t get it wrong I’m sure too.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones.