Different priests interpretations of the Bible.

[Yes]

I went to church the other day ( I had an obligation ) and the priest was this quite young sturdy woman. I talked to her for a while before the ceremony and she talked about how it was sometimes difficult for her to not be able to chose what excerpts from the Bible she should talk about. They apparently have a schedule to follow. On the schedule this day was the part where Jesus said to someone something like: "Give to the emperor what belongs to him and to God what belongs to God" ( I'm sure someone can provide a more accurat bibleqoute here ) , regarding a question of money.
This priest had interpreted that Jesus was being sarcastic here and that this was a personality trait that he often displayed thoughout the whole Bible, but that people very often misses this, of interpret it differently than her.
So she was then at the ceremony talking about the importance of giving to those who have nothing and etc.
My interpretation of the same thing would have been that too, but also that Jesus was saying that money had no value, that if we give back the money to whoever made them, whos face is on the coin, then money would lose its value. By doing this we could ignore and refuse money to have control over our lives. Like you give back a toy to the child who has its name on it. Oh, this must be yours dear...
And how many times is the Bible being interpreted differently? Every time somebody reads it, I suppose. So every new priest that starts a preching carreer gives a totally new angle on the religion. So how can anybody really claim that their religion provides the truth, when everybody within that religion interprets it differently?

 

[Godless]

Bible interpretations...

Bible interpretations fall on the individual (thief) I mean priest, or in your case priestest individuals had started feuds, and out right seperation of church because of bible interpretations, what it is accepted by one group, is totally objectionabel to the other. this is why it is acceptable to atheist that the bible is not a good source of knowledge, it is written by more than one author, sometimes contradicting itself, and exagerating reality, to fit their needs to control the ignorant masses.

The recent gay bishop, comes to mind. The acceptance of this person to bishophood, is a world wide contradiction, with threats of separation by other groups among the same congregation;

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/bishop/

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/06/bishop/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3199156.stm

On the one hand, we have here a group following political correctness and accepting an openly gay man to bishophood, on the other a rather more orthodox group with old fashion values object to such a discrace upon their views.

What is the interpretation of the bible on this matter?. The openly gay bishop, claims that there is nothing wrong, with him being a bishop, or that the bible does not state he shouldn't be bishop, for his sexual choice. It seems others differ greatly from this (interpretation) of the bible.

 

[spidergoat]

I think the meaning of that passage is that the people shouldn't complain about taxes, since the money was printed (minted) by caesar, and you are just returning it to him. Not that we shouldn't use money, but that it is a small human concern, god will provide.

Of course, people interpret the stories in the bible in various ways. They would have you believe that there is only one interpretation, but language doesn't work that way.

"The truth that can be told is not the eternal truth"
Lao Tzu

Jesus himself said that many people would interpret the stories wrong.

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by spidergoat
Jesus himself said that many people would interpret the stories wrong.

In his case, Jesus intentionally led his audience down the garden path, so to speak, so they wouldn't understand his teachings and be saved. He did sometimes explain his parables to his disciples behind closed doors after everyone else had been sent away, and the explanation was pretty frightening (see Jesus' final solution in Matthew 13:36-42). Jesus wasn't all sweetness and light, but for some reason Christians have always been blind to this fact.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Yes
And how many times is the Bible being interpreted differently? Every time somebody reads it, I suppose. So every new priest that starts a preching carreer gives a totally new angle on the religion. So how can anybody really claim that their religion provides the truth, when everybody within that religion interprets it differently?

Firstly, I'm not sure which church you went to - I presume Catholic. They have a very strict liturgical programme that has been worked out in detail beforehand. The same passages and verses are used by all the churches on a specific date. Protestant churches took it over from the Catholic church at first (you'll find a similar programme in the Lutheran church for example), but most have moved away from such a set framework, although it's beginning to come back in a much more constructive (and less binding) form. The more "charismatic" churches have none of it - the preacher chooses the topic. The liturgical reading programme provides a guideline that more or less covers the basic doctrines and prevalent topics in the Bible throughout the Biblical year, but leaves the preacher to present and illustrate the specific passges as he sees fit. But it's definitely not binding - if there is a time or topic that is more relevant to the day, the preacher is free to present it.

The advantage of such a reading programme is that is offers a continuity from one service to the next. Especially for people who go to church frequently it is much more informative, because you get the context and progression in. And if you attend a service in your home town one week, travel on business and attend another church the folowing week, you can still follow the sermon but with another preacher! It's sometimes very refreshing, because of the differences in personality and approach of different preachers.

This brings me to your second point. Remember that preachers do train to get the position, so they have a good idea of what the essential doctrines of the Bible are, and so do the elders of the church, who can determine if a preacher starts going off on a tangent. And this is another area a reading programme helps with: as a structured guideline that the congregation can follow, it's also a learning tool. These things don't fall out of the sky you know - many, many Christians discuss and contribute to them at various levels. It's also an ecumenical tool, because quite often the programme stretches across denominations.

I think the crucial misconception is that each interpretation presents a new theology ("religion" is not the right word). The only claim is that the Bible provides the truth. This is where the expression sola scriptura comes from. Any church who confesses this is bound to the authority of scripture. And it really represents a complete theology on its own already. It's only the application that differs according to circumstances, and that is why studying its principles are so important. A new interpretation isn't the same thing as a new truth, and people should be extremely wary of any such claims to a "new truth" (Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians etc. are examples). But circumstances differ from church to church, that is already evident even in the New Testament itself, and therefore judgement calls are necessary. Structures such as the reading programmes or church hierarchies aren't there to indoctrinate or disenfrachise, but to safeguard healthy theology.

The goal is always transparency, not secrecy as Nehushta would like you to believe.

 

[Nehushta]

Re: Re: Different priests interpretations of the Bible.

Originally posted by Jenyar
The goal is always transparency, not secrecy as Nehushta would like you to believe.

Okay, so either I'm lying about Jesus' "final solution" and his secrecy about it or the bible is lying. Read Matthew 13 and you tell me.

 

[Jenyar]

Re: Re: Re: Different priests interpretations of the Bible.

Originally posted by Nehushta
Okay, so either I'm lying about Jesus' "final solution" and his secrecy about it or the bible is lying. Read Matthew 13 and you tell me.

I have, now I wonder if you understand it.

These things were mysteries until they were revealed, and they were only revealed when Jesus was revelaed as the Christ. What Jesus was doing is arming those "who had ears" with the information necessary to understand God's salvation. The parables were the seeds He was planting. The rest of his life was the water that would make them grow - nothing else would.

I think I have asked you this in another thread somewhere, but do you understand the parables? If you were paying attention ("have ears") you will have heard and understood, just as Jesus' audience could have. But if you insist the parables are unresolved mysteries, then Jesus was right, wasn't he?

 

[Nehushta]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Different priests interpretations of the Bible.

Originally posted by Jenyar
These things were mysteries until they were revealed, and they were only revealed when Jesus was revelaed as the Christ. What Jesus was doing is arming those "who had ears" with the information necessary to understand God's salvation. The parables were the seeds He was planting. The rest of his life was the water that would make them grow - nothing else would.

I think I have asked you this in another thread somewhere, but do you understand the parables? If you were paying attention ("have ears") you will have heard and understood, just as Jesus' audience could have. But if you insist the parables are unresolved mysteries, then Jesus was right, wasn't he?

Where did I say that the parables were unresolved mysteries? And how could I fail to understand their meaning as I eavesdrop from this vantage point in time on his then private communication with his disciples? Oh he was planting seeds alright - he was the enemy planting the tares! And he can hardly wait for the day when the fire is kindled to destroy the tares he planted himself! He lives to cause division among family members, and was even disrespectful to his own family members. Even if he was indeed the best of them, he was still nothing but a brier, sharper than a thorn hedge - and most certainly not the "God of salvation" (see Micah 7:2-7).

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Nehushta
Where did I say that the parables were unresolved mysteries? And how could I fail to understand their meaning as I eavesdrop from this vantage point in time on his then private communication with his disciples? Oh he was planting seeds alright - he was the enemy planting the tares! And he can hardly wait for the day when the fire is kindled to destroy the tares he planted himself! He lives to cause division among family members, and was even disrespectful to his own family members. Even if he was indeed the best of them, he was still nothing but a brier, sharper than a thorn hedge - and most certainly not the "God of salvation" (see Micah 7:2-7).

Nice of you to quote Micah. He was talking about corrupt people. The day of the watchmen came and went, and you didn't heed the warning.

You imply that the parables were unresolvable. That even those people who knew Jesus would not be able to discern their meaning. But they were a natural watershed - each a self-sharpening double-edged sword. You are cutting yourself on them and you don't even realize it.

I'll explain it to you. Remember that Jesus' parables are explained as fulfilling Psalm 78 in Matthew 13:35?

Psalm 78

1 O my people, hear my teaching;
listen to the words of my mouth.
2 I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter hidden things, things from of old-
3 what we have heard and known,
what our fathers have told us.
4 We will not hide them from their children;
we will tell the next generation
the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD ,
his power, and the wonders he has done.
5 He decreed statutes for Jacob
and established the law in Israel,
which he commanded our forefathers
to teach their children,
6 so the next generation would know them,
even the children yet to be born,
and they in turn would tell their children.
7 Then they would put their trust in God
and would not forget his deeds
but would keep his commands.
8 They would not be like their forefathers-
a stubborn and rebellious generation,
whose hearts were not loyal to God,
whose spirits were not faithful to him.

Jesus was drawing from tradition when he told the parables. As I said, he was planting seeds that would bear fruit once they were watered. Those people who heard the first parable and said to themselves "we don't understand it, but we have seen this Jesus is filled with wisdom and we would like to learn what he means", were the "good soil". Or who do you think went to the first churches? Who did the disciples teach? When Jesus began a parable with "the kingdom of heaven is like...", those who were interested would make an effort to understand, and they would seek out this kingdom of heaven. And they would find it with the God of Israel (Psalm 103:19; Daniel 2:44).

But the people who said "this man is talking nonsense," or "it's too much trouble to understand what he means" where not fit for the kingdom Jesus would establish.

Surely you don't think Jesus' audience were limited to the space of one chapter to understand what they were told or not? Jesus was establishing a tradition of teaching that would end up as "Christianity". People who think he never meant his teaching to become a religion are the same people who think those who missed what he said in ten minutes, also missed it for the rest of their lives.

The disciples understood the parables (Matt. 13:51) and they would have taught it to anybody who still believed in Jesus even after he was gone, because that was his command to them (Matt 14:14, 45; Matt 28:20; John 21:15-25)

 

[Nehushta]

Re: Re: Different priests interpretations of the Bible.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Nice of you to quote Micah. He was talking about corrupt people. The day of the watchmen came and went, and you didn't heed the warning.

Micah 7:2 says The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.

During this time, according to Micah 7:6, the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.

According to the NT, Jesus is a man, so logically speaking, he cannot be not "upright among men," unless Micah is much mistaken. Also, Jesus is the one who caused all this division in the first place, so that's another strike against him. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.

You imply that the parables were unresolvable.

No - I merely implied that Christians cannot resolve them, since they refuse to look at them through anything other than gospel-colored glasses.

I'll explain it to you. Remember that Jesus' parables are explained as fulfilling Psalm 78 in Matthew 13:35?

Right. The following verse is my personal favorite from Psalms 78:

Psalms 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.

Obviously, God is not above sending evil representatives among the people. And if he'd do it to the Egyptians, he'd do it to the Jews too, particularly when he promised them a stumblingblock.

 

[heart]

According to the NT, Jesus is a man, so logically speaking, he cannot be not "upright among men," unless Micah is much mistaken. Also, Jesus is the one who caused all this division in the first place, so that's another strike against him. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.

Excellent point! Well said.

 

[okinrus]

According to the NT, Jesus is a man, so logically speaking, he cannot be not "upright among men," unless Micah is much mistaken. Also, Jesus is the one who caused all this division in the first place, so that's another strike against him. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.

No, Jesus wasn't quite on earth in Micah's time.

Your translation is wrong on the Psalm. It should read "angels of death".

 

[Jenyar]

Re: Re: Re: Different priests interpretations of the Bible.

Originally posted by Nehushta
Micah 7:2 says The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.

During this time, according to Micah 7:6, the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.

According to the NT, Jesus is a man, so logically speaking, he cannot be not "upright among men," unless Micah is much mistaken. Also, Jesus is the one who caused all this division in the first place, so that's another strike against him. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.

The Bible also says "Abram believed the LORD , and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Gen. 15:6)

Nobody is upright (righteous), they can only be made (credited to be) righteous by God who is righteous. To everybody on earth this is available through faith - but Jesus was both credited righteousness and One who could credit righteousness to men, because He was the righteous man. That is why He said he came to call "not the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).

The process is described clearly by Paul:

Romans 4
20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." 23The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

If you're still confused:

Romans 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

No - I merely implied that Christians cannot resolve them, since they refuse to look at them through anything other than gospel-colored glasses.

You said yourself you had the priviledge of retrospect - so do we. But Christians have the added priviledge of actually believing what Jesus said. Through what other glasses would you have us look at the gospel? If you look at it through anything but Christ, it ceases to be "gospel" (good news).

Right. The following verse is my personal favorite from Psalms 78:

Psalms 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.

Obviously, God is not above sending evil representatives among the people. And if he'd do it to the Egyptians, he'd do it to the Jews too, particularly when he promised them a stumblingblock.

Someone being tested by God is far better off than someone being tested by Satan. Unless you lose faith, hope and love, you have nothing to worry about - and nothing can make you lose any of those when they are all made as choices.

As for the Jews, there is an old custom that if someone wishes to accept their faith they will ask "why do you want to come into Israel, don't you know that God is presently putting us through much suffering, persecution and hardships?". And if the person is sincere, he will say "I am not worthy of such hardships". Or something along those lines. Christians have something similar: "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain."

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by okinrus
No, Jesus wasn't quite on earth in Micah's time.

Micah was speaking of a time when there would be division and strife between members of the same household. Jesus himself claimed credit for this division, and even proclaimed this as his very purpose in Luke 12:49-53:

I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Your translation is wrong on the Psalm. It should read "angels of death".

My translation is wrong? I admit that I have been around the block once or twice, but King James I'm not. The word translated to "angel" in this verse is mal'ak," which basically means messenger or representative; the word that was translated to "evil" is "ra'," which does mean evil or bad. So where's the problem in my translation?

 

[Nehushta]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Different priests interpretations of the Bible.

Originally posted by Jenyar
The Bible also says "Abram believed the LORD , and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Gen. 15:6)

Nobody is upright (righteous), they can only be made (credited to be) righteous by God who is righteous. To everybody on earth this is available through faith - but Jesus was both credited righteousness and One who could credit righteousness to men, because He was the righteous man. That is why He said he came to call "not the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).

Jesus himself admitted he was not good (see Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19). I am saying nothing more than what he himself has revealed to those who have ears to hear.

You said yourself you had the priviledge of retrospect - so do we. But Christians have the added priviledge of actually believing what Jesus said. Through what other glasses would you have us look at the gospel? If you look at it through anything but Christ, it ceases to be "gospel" (good news).

Truer words were never spoken, although you have undoubtedly overlooked the truth in them.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
No, Jesus wasn't quite on earth in Micah's time.

Your translation is wrong on the Psalm. It should read "angels of death".
----------
M*W: If my memory serves me correctly, I seem to recall that all the Christians on the forum have, at one time or another, stated that "Jesus was the Word made flesh," and "the Word was with God, and the Word was God," from the beginning of Genesis?

 

[okinrus]

In almost no places in the bible is "all" used in an exclusive sense.

My translation is wrong? I admit that I have been around the block once or twice, but King James I'm not. The word translated to "angel" in this verse is mal'ak," which basically means messenger or representative; the word that was translated to "evil" is "ra'," which does mean evil or bad. So where's the problem in my translation?

It is clear in that passage that "angel of death" is the angel that God sent over passover. http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/questions/answer/god/character/createevil.xml/

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by okinrus
It is clear in that passage that "angel of death" is the angel that God sent over passover. http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/questions/answer/god/character/createevil.xml/

Your link had nothing to do with angels of death. It turned out to be nothing more than a Christian response to God's OT claim to have created evil. Their denial appears to be based on nothing more than the Christian inability to assimilate such ideas about the god they worship, despite the fact that this revelation allegedly came from God himself.

Two words come to mind here: intellectual dishonesty. God doesn't have to deceive Christians - they do it quite willingly to themselves!

 

[okinrus]

No, it had the definition of "ra" in hebrew. Your perception was that it met "evil" but it really is the opposite of shalom. While "ra" could mean evil, the context of the words before "ra", "He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation", tell us that a true translation would read angel of death.

Two words come to mind here: intellectual dishonesty. God doesn't have to deceive Christians - they do it quite willingly to themselves!

It's quite apparant that you are not posting anything of value.

Your link had nothing to do with angels of death. It turned out to be nothing more than a Christian response to God's OT claim to have created evil. Their denial appears to be based on nothing more than the Christian inability to assimilate such ideas about the god they worship, despite the fact that this revelation allegedly came from God himself.

Most of the Pslams are not revelation, or oracles directly from the Lord. They are songs of praise deemed inspired by the Church father's. The book of Amos says, "If the trumpet sounds in a city, will the people not be freightened? If evil befalls a city, has not the LORD caused it?" it's clear that when Amos usese "evil" he does not mean evil that is in opposition to God. If you look up the definition of "evil" in the webster dictionary, you will find a second definition that means "misfortune". Furthermore, you keep on trying to find contradictions to prove that God is evil without realizing that God defines what is evil. He could just as well define what we know evil as good and we would be non the wiser.

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by okinrus
While "ra" could mean evil, the context of the words before "ra", "He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation", tell us that a true translation would read angel of death.

This appears to be just another non sequitur of yours.

It's quite apparant that you are not posting anything of value.

Then we should get along swimmingly.

Most of the Pslams are not revelation, or oracles directly from the Lord. They are songs of praise deemed inspired by the Church father's.

Since when are any of the passages in the book of Isaiah considered Psalms? The link you sent me to was explaining the meaning of Isaiah 45:7, which is what I was commenting on here. You're the one who tossed in the red herring to begin with - did you expect me not to read it or comment on it?

The book of Amos says, "If the trumpet sounds in a city, will the people not be freightened? If evil befalls a city, has not the LORD caused it?" it's clear that when Amos usese "evil" he does not mean evil that is in opposition to God.

Who said anything about evil being in opposition to God? Isaiah 45:7 says God created evil - so it is obviously not in opposition to him.

If you look up the definition of "evil" in the webster dictionary, you will find a second definition that means "misfortune".

Nothing evil about causing someone else misfortune, is there?

Furthermore, you keep on trying to find contradictions to prove that God is evil without realizing that God defines what is evil. He could just as well define what we know evil as good and we would be non the wiser.

Apparently this has indeed been the case for several thousand years now.