How to read the Bible: An Orthodox perspective

[Seperates]

Teaching and de-conversion is like making love to a woman... it is best to take it slow... tease them into asking for it... then giving them what you both now want.

Without all those bodily fluids and whatnot...

Making love is a myth.

Tah. Somebody needs to get laid.

[Galborg]

Yeah that would have been cool..... like the writers of some OT books not the Pentateuch though.

Exactly... But no, he just had to be illiterate for all we know...

Not illiterate. Jesus was in a synagogue (in Capernahum???), it was his turn to read the Scripture, he read a Messianic prophecy from Isaiah and said "This day, the prophecy is fulfilled before your very nostrils."

Yeshu bar Stad with his cousins bar Tenda, bar Fly and bar Tsimpson.

[Seperates]

Exactly... But no, he just had to be illiterate for all we know...

Not illiterate. Jesus was in a synagogue (in Capernahum???), it was his turn to read the Scripture, he read a Messianic prophecy from Isaiah and said "This day, the prophecy is fulfilled before your very nostrils."

Yeshu bar Stad with his cousins bar Tenda, bar Fly and bar Tsimpson.

Evidence?

Not only that, but if he did do that... WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T HE KEEP A JOURNAL?!?!

[Distruzio]

Ah... finally a moment to myself... or something like it. And I spend that time on NSG. See how I love you all?

It doesn't contradict the bible.

The trinity belief ring a bell?

Immortality of the soul?

Hellfire?

Hellfire is not explicitly an orthodox doctrine in either of the churches I've mentioned which are part of the worldwide Church of which I speak so often. It is routinely referenced, exclaimed, and emphasized, but I'm not entirely certain that it is doctrine, as such.

In either case, none of the things you list contradict the Bible. Recall my comments in the OP on typology of Christ? That same approach applies to each of the things you mention - quite explicitly, the Trinity.

[Distruzio]

I didn't say you were. And heresy implies confusion about the text you read.

No it doesn't. Heresy is defined as (using Google) "1. Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine.
2. Opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted."

Neither of these definitions implies any kind of confusion. It simply implies not agreeing with the orthodox.

Note the context in which we speak, Sal. I'm not talking about an extra-religious definition of heresy, but the very pertinent religious aspect of heresy against orthodox (small 'o') doctrine. The heterodox theologians are indeed confused about the nature and letter of orthodox teaching about the Word while also conforming to the extra-religious definition of heresy you mention.

Remember, Christians believe that Christ is the Truth. If Christ is, by the words of the Scriptures, the Head of the Church, and His words declare that the Gates of Hell shall not stand against it, then it is obvious that anyone who adheres to sola scriptura and yet denies the primacy of the churches I have previously mentioned is, indeed, quite confused about what Scripture says and what tradition holds as true - that Christ is the Truth.

[Distruzio]

Heresy is NOT confusion. Heresy is a clear and precise doctrine which contradicts official doctrine.

In the official doctrine is vague and a faction's doctrine is vague, then that faction can remain a part of the official church for generations. It is only when either side preaches a precise and clear doctrine that the charge of heresy is sustainable.

The official orthodox doctrine is NOT vague, thus the heretics remain confused.

[Distruzio]

Distruzio, what do you think of TULIP Calvinism? I tend to like Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity more because they are more humane (I am an atheist, BTW), but the God in the Bible does seem like a creep a lot of the time, which seems to go with mass-murderer John Calvin's interpretation of the Bible.

They always came across as a Christian Taliban to me, honestly.

[Distruzio]

More than obedience, however, the Christian needs to interpret Scripture through the Church.

How To Read the Bible: An Orthodox Perspective

Step 1: Read currently-accepted Church doctrine
Step 2:

Pretty much.

[Distruzio]

My opinion the way to read Bible is just to read it, and think about it in your own way, consider what is correct/wrong about it, find the version of your preference, with or without the deuterocanonical and so on (my own preference is to include all of them).

This is exactly what my OP was oriented against.

[Distruzio]

First of I am not an apologist I need to state here that most Protestant congregations do not rely on sola scriptura alone, instead most rely equally on revelation of the holy spirit in accordance with the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the pentacost. Personally I only consider the words of the prophets (Ot and the Gospels) that constitute true scripture, Pauls letters were itinerant teachings seeking to define doctrine and not scripture and furthermore I also question the accuracy of modern translation of the bible. Nonetheless I'll rely on NT quote to illustrate certain points firstly:
" For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:20 [NIV])

"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." (1 Cor. 14:26 [NASB]; see also Colossians 3:16, Hebrews 10:24–25)

So the early church were empowered by gifts of the holy spirit and in particular the teachings of the messiah who quoted the words of the prophets. This was not within a structure of Church and Priesthood but in small home based sharing with a few leaders (Paul etc) who helped to clarify issues. This apostolic structure is maintained with each baptised member gaining prayerful revelation when meditating upon the words of the prophets and an annointed priest being able to clarify questions in accordance with tradition/doctrine.

Indeed. The hiccup between Christians and Protestants is that, for some reason, the Protestants believe that, at some point, Scriptures promises about the Church and the reliable men constituting it ceased to be true. Protestants, by the very fact of being Protestants, reveal that they do not believe Scripture to be true. Therefore, in order to compensate, they elevate the infallible text to near deity-like status with them (the individual Protestant) as the supreme Pontiff interpreting it infallibly.

[Distruzio]

"You worship the right god, but incorrectly".

In a nutshell. You took all my verbosity and made a bumper sticker out of it. I like that!

[Distruzio]

I find it amusing that he doesn't trust a republic to keep freedom, but he trusts the church, a far more authoritarian and much more "freedom" squashing montrosity (when it is allowed to interfere in politics, that is).

I don't think you completed that thought, Sep.

I don't trust a republic to keep freedom but I trust the Church to..... <<???>>

What is your complaint?

[Distruzio]

Hi Distruzio. I'm Catholic and study theology on the side. You seem to have attracted a few dissidents already, and I was hoping I could help you clear up some concerns (assuming you're okay with that).

Always!

Now with that said I really don't want to get into an argument about this stuff and derail Distruzio's thread, since I'm interested to hear more about how the Orthodox interpret the Bible, so I'm going to stop.

Thank you!

[Distruzio]

I am a Protestant, but I do not deny Christ. I see praying to statues of Mary and David as idolatry.

That's nice. What does it have to do with the OP?

[Distruzio]

I am an Evangelical Baptist, but I respect the beliefs of other Christian groups, thus I think Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all going to Heaven.

I don't.

I'm a bigot, in this regard. I'm sure God will compensate for the heresy somehow, but I can't accept the Protestant approach except in very extreme and rare cases (The Merchant Republics, Prussia-Steinbach, and a few other NSGer's for example). I'm ardently anti-evangelist and find the local thumpers on the corner offensive.

In fact, I'm skeptical about who gets into heaven and who doesn't. I know that I'm an asshole and I certainly do not deserve it, nor would I take the offer if I knew some homosexual was going to be excluded for failing to adhere to my gender-attraction preferences or an alcoholic was going to be excluded for succumbing to his vice. A God like that is not the God that I worship.

[Distruzio]

It should be noted that there really are two camps of the "sola scriptura" concept as well..... the more classical reformed concept of it espoused by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli which hold that the knowledge to repentance and salvation is complete within the scriptures (but which hold the various creeds and confessions in support as well as justifiable traditional elements); and that of the Fundamentalist and Evangelic (as well later baptist movements) which hold to a radical scripture only concept (which reject creeds and confessions).

Indeed. I should have mentioned this in the OP. Thank you, Tek.

[Distruzio]

My main issue therein with your argument, is one that admittedly, I know you Distruzio, probably wouldn't even disagree with me on.

Principally, the issue is the danger inherent in present the Church as infallible, because it will inevitably also present the hierarchy within the church as "infallible" but this is not so.

As you rightly mention, the infallible nature of the Church comes not from any individual of any hierarchy of any sect, it does not make all that the Pope says from the throne "correct" but instead, means that any mistake in scripture made by men in the Church will be corrected by the Church. The Holy Spirit works within the Church to correct false doctrines through inspiring men to dissent from them.

This is in my mind the place where protestants have done a real service to the Global Body of Christ, our dissent brought the (Western/Roman Catholic) Church to reevaluate the mistakes it had made in doctrine. It corrected what was wrong with Church beliefs.

Absolutely correct, TMR. Which is exactly why I always always always exempt the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, and a few others from my dismissal.

However, and I blame you for it Distruzio, I'm coming around more and more to the argument, and rightly history seems to be beading down on it, that we Protestants went too far, our schism while not heretical has encouraged heretical practice and by-and-by Protestants account for the lion's share of the blame for the modern perception of the Church (as a whole) as stodgy, ignorant and unwilling to accept plain facts.

There are I think some wholly positive things that come from the movement of the Church I was born into, we have a lot to do with the rise of religious tolerance, I think we have renewed and perhaps continue to renew faith in a way that keeps it from being forgotten, we have brought a new-found evangelism that I find the Orthodox and Catholic Sects of our Church to be sorely lacking. Our faith is a boisterous one, and it's an issue particularly in where the protestants are so far afield of Biblical tradition that we have inadvertantly scared many away from faith, but we are also winning new converts much faster than the more traditional Churches.

The Sola Scriptura movement is in part to blame. That is indeed to say Protestantism is the sect most ripely in need of correction from the Holy Spirit and the Church at large today. I think Distruzio, that you and I are a part of this dissent that will bring it back into the line with the Truth of Church of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps, you may be on to something there, my friend. You, of course, know that I rely on you to check my tendency to respond with derision to the Protestant mindset.

[The Merchant Republics]

My main issue therein with your argument, is one that admittedly, I know you Distruzio, probably wouldn't even disagree with me on.

Principally, the issue is the danger inherent in present the Church as infallible, because it will inevitably also present the hierarchy within the church as "infallible" but this is not so.

As you rightly mention, the infallible nature of the Church comes not from any individual of any hierarchy of any sect, it does not make all that the Pope says from the throne "correct" but instead, means that any mistake in scripture made by men in the Church will be corrected by the Church. The Holy Spirit works within the Church to correct false doctrines through inspiring men to dissent from them.

This is in my mind the place where protestants have done a real service to the Global Body of Christ, our dissent brought the (Western/Roman Catholic) Church to reevaluate the mistakes it had made in doctrine. It corrected what was wrong with Church beliefs.

Absolutely correct, TMR. Which is exactly why I always always always exempt the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, and a few others from my dismissal.

However, and I blame you for it Distruzio, I'm coming around more and more to the argument, and rightly history seems to be beading down on it, that we Protestants went too far, our schism while not heretical has encouraged heretical practice and by-and-by Protestants account for the lion's share of the blame for the modern perception of the Church (as a whole) as stodgy, ignorant and unwilling to accept plain facts.

There are I think some wholly positive things that come from the movement of the Church I was born into, we have a lot to do with the rise of religious tolerance, I think we have renewed and perhaps continue to renew faith in a way that keeps it from being forgotten, we have brought a new-found evangelism that I find the Orthodox and Catholic Sects of our Church to be sorely lacking. Our faith is a boisterous one, and it's an issue particularly in where the protestants are so far afield of Biblical tradition that we have inadvertantly scared many away from faith, but we are also winning new converts much faster than the more traditional Churches.

The Sola Scriptura movement is in part to blame. That is indeed to say Protestantism is the sect most ripely in need of correction from the Holy Spirit and the Church at large today. I think Distruzio, that you and I are a part of this dissent that will bring it back into the line with the Truth of Church of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps, you may be on to something there, my friend. You, of course, know that I rely on you to check my tendency to respond with derision to the Protestant mindset.

At this time, it really is do or die for Protestantism.

For all the perception that the Orthodox/Catholic Churches are too traditional, they have been by far the most responsive to change. It took the Vatican a decade to accept the works of Charles Darwin, my church is still out on whether the universe started 6,000 or 10,000 years ago...

I fear our evangelistic success is a swan song, when paired up against the march of progress. Fundamentalist churches are already being treated with kid gloves, which speaking of kids seem to run out of it like a sleep-over at Never-Never Land, usually to join some vocal group of atheists which erroneously claim we're all that crazy. Protestants don't have the staying power that the traditional churches have, I think of course they will survive, when we remind ourselves once again that we are all one body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit will lead us back to the truth and away from the sort of puffery that's been our bread and butter since we started waning.

We have good things to add, as I said, but far too much baggage to lose in the meantime. The schisms are deep, but I think not irrecoverable. All things being possible through God no?

Anyways, totally agreed with you Distruzio, I have trouble believing in a God that would condemn a man based on whom he choose to love, or a repentant alcoholic. luckily I think we know well enough that is not the God we believe in.

[Tekania]

Absolutely correct, TMR. Which is exactly why I always always always exempt the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, and a few others from my dismissal.

Perhaps, you may be on to something there, my friend. You, of course, know that I rely on you to check my tendency to respond with derision to the Protestant mindset.

At this time, it really is do or die for Protestantism.

For all the perception that the Orthodox/Catholic Churches are too traditional, they have been by far the most responsive to change. It took the Vatican a decade to accept the works of Charles Darwin, my church is still out on whether the universe started 6,000 or 10,000 years ago...

I fear our evangelistic success is a swan song, when paired up against the march of progress. Fundamentalist churches are already being treated with kid gloves, which speaking of kids seem to run out of it like a sleep-over at Never-Never Land, usually to join some vocal group of atheists which erroneously claim we're all that crazy. Protestants don't have the staying power that the traditional churches have, I think of course they will survive, when we remind ourselves once again that we are all one body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit will lead us back to the truth and away from the sort of puffery that's been our bread and butter since we started waning.

We have good things to add, as I said, but far too much baggage to lose in the meantime. The schisms are deep, but I think not irrecoverable. All things being possible through God no?

Anyways, totally agreed with you Distruzio, I have trouble believing in a God that would condemn a man based on whom he choose to love, or a repentant alcoholic. luckily I think we know well enough that is not the God we believe in.

Not all of us are, I'm in the PCUSA..... evolutionary creation theories are accepted, and we ordain women and homosexuals/lesbians..... still don't have accepted support overall of SSM, though judging by the last General Assembly vote that's not too far away either.... it was pretty close last time.

[CTALNH]

I am a Greek (the flag)

Isn't our orthodox perspective of bible and dogma only different to the:Son-God-Holy spirit thing


Minus the political games of back then

[Farnhamia]

I am a Greek (the flag)

Isn't our orthodox perspective of bible and dogma only different to the:Son-God-Holy spirit thing


Minus the political games of back then

Political games? Political games? Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom would like to remind you that this is your immortal soul we're talking about here. Rooting out heresy in the Empire is what saved you, buddy.

I never much cared for Gregory personally, though the man could put together a peroration like nobody's business. I have to say, though, for the sheer pleasure of listening, nobody could touch John Chrysostom.

[CTALNH]

I am a Greek (the flag)

Isn't our orthodox perspective of bible and dogma only different to the:Son-God-Holy spirit thing


Minus the political games of back then

Political games? Political games? Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom would like to remind you that this is your immortal soul we're talking about here. Rooting out heresy in the Empire is what saved you, buddy.

I never much cared for Gregory personally, though the man could put together a peroration like nobody's business. I have to say, though, for the sheer pleasure of listening, nobody could touch John Chrysostom.

Yeah welcome to the club of understanding religion is for making you an obedient pawn!

[Farnhamia]

Political games? Political games? Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom would like to remind you that this is your immortal soul we're talking about here. Rooting out heresy in the Empire is what saved you, buddy.

I never much cared for Gregory personally, though the man could put together a peroration like nobody's business. I have to say, though, for the sheer pleasure of listening, nobody could touch John Chrysostom.

Yeah welcome to the club of understanding religion is for making you an obedient pawn!

Religion, like a great many things, is what you make of it. Some people do use it to control others. Some people use it as a comfort, some as a way to deal with the uncertainties of life. Not everything has an ulterior meaning. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Herr Marx was not completely incorrect when he wrote, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Sometimes, people in pain need opium. The trick not to become addicted to it by thinking that the world cannot be made better.

[Pope Joan]

First of I am not an apologist I need to state here that most Protestant congregations do not rely on sola scriptura alone, instead most rely equally on revelation of the holy spirit in accordance with the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the pentacost. Personally I only consider the words of the prophets (Ot and the Gospels) that constitute true scripture, Pauls letters were itinerant teachings seeking to define doctrine and not scripture and furthermore I also question the accuracy of modern translation of the bible. Nonetheless I'll rely on NT quote to illustrate certain points firstly:
" For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:20 [NIV])

"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." (1 Cor. 14:26 [NASB]; see also Colossians 3:16, Hebrews 10:24–25)

So the early church were empowered by gifts of the holy spirit and in particular the teachings of the messiah who quoted the words of the prophets. This was not within a structure of Church and Priesthood but in small home based sharing with a few leaders (Paul etc) who helped to clarify issues. This apostolic structure is maintained with each baptised member gaining prayerful revelation when meditating upon the words of the prophets and an annointed priest being able to clarify questions in accordance with tradition/doctrine.

Indeed. The hiccup between Christians and Protestants is that, for some reason, the Protestants believe that, at some point, Scriptures promises about the Church and the reliable men constituting it ceased to be true. Protestants, by the very fact of being Protestants, reveal that they do not believe Scripture to be true. Therefore, in order to compensate, they elevate the infallible text to near deity-like status with them (the individual Protestant) as the supreme Pontiff interpreting it infallibly.

Huh? Protestants disliked errant teaching from inaccurate church-centric bibles. Protestants also wanted Bibles that everybody could read. So, transparency, be up front about your manuscript and historical sources. Then, translate into the vernacular, and distribute the translations. Finally, study these new bibles in groups rather than relying on your individual wisdom.

I'm not a Protestant, but I do prefer the Protestant NT. As for the OT, The Jerusalem Bible is best, but only because Pope John XXIII unchained the scholars of Rome.

[Dyakovo]

My opinion the way to read Bible is just to read it, and think about it in your own way, consider what is correct/wrong about it, find the version of your preference, with or without the deuterocanonical and so on (my own preference is to include all of them).

This is exactly what my OP was oriented against.

Yes, we know that you don't consider yourself smart enough to just read the bible yourself, and your church agrees with you.