How to read the Bible: An Orthodox perspective

[Nordengrund]

It doesn't matter how you interpret it, just read it. Some parts were meant to be taken literally and others weren't. Read it for yourself and find out what is right and what is wrong, that is my opinion.

[Enadail]

It doesn't matter how you interpret it, just read it. Some parts were meant to be taken literally and others weren't. Read it for yourself and find out what is right and what is wrong, that is my opinion.

So you did take what I said earlier to heart? Pretty big change in a pretty short period of time.

But at least that's a reasonable position to have on it. Frankly, reading the bible critically is the best way to renege on much of what it espouses.

[Menassa]

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.

Yes but Isaiah 53 isn't speaking about Jesus.... missonries like to tell you so but they're wrong.

Also that bottom comment shows ignorance...... if you knew what Bar meant it wouldn't be so funny..... just because it's a language you can't understand doesn't mean it's funny.

[Galloism]

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

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.

On the subject of the trinity (I will address immortality later, if I feel it is worth it), how do you reconcile your belief that Jesus is God with the repeated and explicit statements of Jesus and his apostles that he was not God, not equal to God, was sent forth by God, and had to pray for strength to God?

[Menassa]

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



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.

On the subject of the trinity (I will address immortality later, if I feel it is worth it), how do you reconcile your belief that Jesus is God with the repeated and explicit statements of Jesus and his apostles that he was not God, not equal to God, was sent forth by God, and had to pray for strength to God?

and when he was on the cross he asked god a question.

an answer that could only be given by god himself .... or themselves.

[Galloism]

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.

See, there is a rather large presumption here: that the "worldwide church" (or the orthodox, catholic, etc churches) is the church of God.

The Bible itself tells us that Satan "transforms himself into an angel of light" (becoming a false beacon as it were).

Combine this with the foretold great apostasy (which was already occurring as the apostle John was near his end), and we can't be certain that Christ is at the head of any church.

Presuming that he is, though, how do you determine which church? They all say wildly different things. There must be some metric.

[The Merchant Republics]

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.

Which is good.

My point isn't all Protestants are bad. I'm a protestant, my parents are protestants and we believe the same thing.

My point is that by and large it is the Protestants that are bad for it.

[Seperates]

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?

You trust the Church to follow the will of God.

Why don't you trust a republic to follow the will of the many and of the few?

[Seperates]

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.

See, and this is why, despite our differences, I will always view you as a decent human being.

[Seperates]

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.

You know.... I've always wondered what exactly "Evolutionary creation theory" is.

Care to explain?

[Tekania]

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.

You know.... I've always wondered what exactly "Evolutionary creation theory" is.

Care to explain?

There are three, which two only differentiate on theological elements with one another, and then lesser one which contests evolutionary types...... Theistic Evolution, and Evolutionary Creationism are the two. The differentiation exists in the two only in-so-far as their views of God's level of involvement. Theistic Evolution holds the concept that God does creative initial work and then has no involvement with creation, whereas Evolutionary Creation sees the entire process as an active work by a God who is involved, on a practical matter of the outworking of evolution they don't hold any different that scientific evolution (they don't really contest the science, they don't attempt to replace they science, they are merely theological ideas only). Or more accurately Evolutionary Creationism is nothing but a reworking of Theistic Evolution under a Calvinistic (Reformed) perspective. The other is called "Progressive Creationism" which believes God created types (ex nihlo), and speciation occurred from there.

[Distruzio]

It doesn't matter how you interpret it, just read it. Some parts were meant to be taken literally and others weren't. Read it for yourself and find out what is right and what is wrong, that is my opinion.

Incorrect.

[Distruzio]

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.

See, and this is why, despite our differences, I will always view you as a decent human being.

I has a fan?

[Distruzio]

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?

You trust the Church to follow the will of God.

Why don't you trust a republic to follow the will of the many and of the few?

1. I don't recall saying that. I have criticized democracy - justly. Republicanism is not democracy. The less democratic a republic is, the more I trust it.

2. A republic by its very nature repudiates the will of the many in favor of the rights of the few. Hence my assertion that it is quite distinguishable from democracy.

In this respect, we can see that the Catholic Church is organized as a monarchical religious gov't separated from the State while the Anglican Communion is organized as a religious republican gov't separated from the State. The Orthodox Church is organized more as an Empire of religious monarchical republics when separated from the State - which it now is. When it was united with the State, however, it was more of a Caesaropapist State. Each Protestant sect creates an inverse of this observation of the Orthodox by paralleling Theocracy, Democracy, and Techno/Meritocracy (more or less)

Of course I simplify greatly... almost too greatly, actually.

[Seleucas]

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.

Agreed, and, in fact, Calvin's rule over Geneva ruled something like that.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

L (limited election) is probably the weakest point of Calvin's doctrine. The only reason why it stands is the notion that a group of people won't go to heaven, and that itself is a rather elementary point to make.

Maybe he saw that he had the acronym "TUIP" lined up and needed to make his point more memorable.

Well, more specifically, limited election is more or less the doctrine of predestination; some, God has predetermined to spare, others He has predetermined to send to Hell. It's not so much saying that some people won't be saved, but that they CAN'T be saved. It's definitely not a very pleasant doctrine, but it is fascinating in much the same way as a train wreck.

In theory, it's just that - some are going to be saved, some aren't. And because God is omniscient and has laid out His own plan, this is the (quite obvious) result of that.

In practice, diehard Calvinists turn it into double predestination - ie., people are going to Hell because of whatever sinful act they're into at the time. This view is ignorant of other acts of God in the Bible; for example, the criminal that is saved on the cross. Or, an even better example for those that dig deeper into the New Testament, Saul/Paul. To say that a person is going to Hell because of their present action ignores both the depravity doctrine also in Calvinism and the timing of God's plan in the Bible.

[New Vaticana]

Distruzio, what do you think of the old method of Bible reading where one chooses a particular section, say a paragraph or a few verses, reads it over several times, and then contemplates it for about an hour? I can't remember the name of it offhand, but it seems it's used by priests and I had to practice it at my school. Unfortunately, when I tried it I was never able to find a section that could hold my interest, and I just found myself asking a lot of questions and not being able to follow up on them unless I left the section at hand. Was I going about it wrong?

[Seperates]

See, and this is why, despite our differences, I will always view you as a decent human being.

I has a fan?

Not a fan. I think the proper term would be collegue.

[Seperates]

You trust the Church to follow the will of God.

Why don't you trust a republic to follow the will of the many and of the few?

1. I don't recall saying that. I have criticized democracy - justly. Republicanism is not democracy. The less democratic a republic is, the more I trust it.

2. A republic by its very nature repudiates the will of the many in favor of the rights of the few. Hence my assertion that it is quite distinguishable from democracy.

In this respect, we can see that the Catholic Church is organized as a monarchical religious gov't separated from the State while the Anglican Communion is organized as a religious republican gov't separated from the State. The Orthodox Church is organized more as an Empire of religious monarchical republics when separated from the State - which it now is. When it was united with the State, however, it was more of a Caesaropapist State. Each Protestant sect creates an inverse of this observation of the Orthodox by paralleling Theocracy, Democracy, and Techno/Meritocracy (more or less)

Of course I simplify greatly... almost too greatly, actually.

Point taken. I remove my objection, though I still believe the Church, no matter the sect, is still too highly authoritarian and stagnent to be of any actual use in portraying the will of "The Holy Spirit", should such frivolous spirit even exist, in this modern age.

[Distruzio]

Distruzio, what do you think of the old method of Bible reading where one chooses a particular section, say a paragraph or a few verses, reads it over several times, and then contemplates it for about an hour? I can't remember the name of it offhand, but it seems it's used by priests and I had to practice it at my school. Unfortunately, when I tried it I was never able to find a section that could hold my interest, and I just found myself asking a lot of questions and not being able to follow up on them unless I left the section at hand. Was I going about it wrong?

I see no problem with it, personally. I've never actually done it either.

I do know that it should be done in the correct mindset, lest it becomes divination. Where the reader expects the Word to speak to him about the days events. Protestants do this. They'll open the Bible to a random page each day and let their eyes settle on the first passage their inclined to and keep that passage in mind throughout the day, looking for God's signs that He has noticed their supreme devotion and ability to infallibly interpret His Word at random. If that sounds outlandish, it's b/c it is.

With all of that in mind, I cannot honestly comment on the correctness of your action, NV. Paying attention in Church is difficult enough without all the external distractions the world offers. Reading the Bible, even sections of it, alone without a Priest or other Christian to help and holding those sections in mind seems even more difficult. I suppose there are writings about such difficulties from the Church fathers as they explored the monastic life. Perhaps you could start there? Consulting the minds of men whose writings represent the timeless Mind of the Church has helped me greatly in my Christian life. Maybe it could help you as well, brother?

[Distruzio]

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.

See, there is a rather large presumption here: that the "worldwide church" (or the orthodox, catholic, etc churches) is the church of God.

The Bible itself tells us that Satan "transforms himself into an angel of light" (becoming a false beacon as it were).

Combine this with the foretold great apostasy (which was already occurring as the apostle John was near his end), and we can't be certain that Christ is at the head of any church.

Presuming that he is, though, how do you determine which church? They all say wildly different things. There must be some metric.

Ah, gnosticism. How I cherish thee. Really, Gallo. What you have just presented is a oft touted critique of the Church that the condemned Gnostic sects bring to bare. Unfortunately, it all comes down to a choice in faith. The Gnostics can and do make just as many claims to apostolic tradition as we do. They do not, however, claim the same heritage via the Patriarchal Consensus that we do, nor could they, being condemned as heretics.

(yes, I am quite familiar with the gnostic sects and once, in my misotheist days, considered adopting their language to accuse the Church of heresy)

As for choosing the correct Church, I rather think that of those Ive previously mentioned, it all comes down to personal relationship with God. For me, it was almost as though I was made for the Orthodox Church. Even as I tried each of the others (and Protestant churches immediately following my conversion), I knew within weeks whether I was fit for the church I visited. Taking communion at first visit with the Episcopalians seemed wrong even before I did it, and I was immediately stricken with food poisoning an hour later. The Anglicans, while beautiful and fantastic, did not satisfy - especially after I met with the local Bishop to ask about the Church. So on and so forth.

I could go on about how each church within the Church (and without) failed to satisfy me, but the gist is simply that, for me, the Orthodox express the fullness of the Truth.

Each member of the Church says similar things, not so wildly separate. Each approached the Truth in a unique way - we Orthodox are more mystical and personal. The Romans are more legalistic and structured. The Anglicans more relational and statist. The Lutherans are more bible centric and structured. Etc etc. Each point towards the Truth, that cannot be denied. The Protestants, however, as I have implied routinely, don't point at the Truth (which itself implies a constant desire and inability to ultimately achieve) but, rather, expressly state that they possess the Truth. Each Protestant sect says the same thing - they have it correct where everyone else is incorrect. That is heresy, through and through.

Each member of the Church avoids this pitfall of exclusivity by stating clearly (in various ways) that there are those that the Church does not have that God has, and there are those the Church has that God does not. In modern vernacular, its a shoulder shrug and an invitation to join us in finding out where the Protestant points and wags a finger at your failure to see.

[Galborg]

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.

Yes but Isaiah 53 isn't speaking about Jesus.... missonries like to tell you so but they're wrong.

Also that bottom comment shows ignorance...... if you knew what Bar meant it wouldn't be so funny..... just because it's a language you can't understand doesn't mean it's funny.

ani yode'a et-ivrit va-et-arami
Yeshu bar Yosef = Jesus Joseph's son makes sense.
Yeshu ha Momzer = Yeshu Momzra = Jesus the Barstad makes sense.
Talmud prophecying that the next false Messiah will be Yeshu bar Stad makes no sense. "And the sign that this one is the FALSE Messiah is that his name will be a rude word in 2000 years time, in a completely different language altogether."

Or did they mean it in Yiddish? "bar Stadt" = son of the town = man about town. "And the sign that this one is the FALSE Messiah is that his name will be a rude word in 800 years time, in your OWN language altogether."

Do you really belief that God the Father is a portmanteau of Albus perceval Dumbledore and Obi wan Kenobi dispensing completely useless prophecies altogether?

If I were God AND anti-Xtian, I would prophecy beware Jesus bar Joseph, he is a false Messiah. If I were anti-Xtian Dumbledore, I would prophecy beware Jesus whose name will be rude centuries later, he is the true Messiah from a certain point of view.

[Tekania]

Well, more specifically, limited election is more or less the doctrine of predestination; some, God has predetermined to spare, others He has predetermined to send to Hell. It's not so much saying that some people won't be saved, but that they CAN'T be saved. It's definitely not a very pleasant doctrine, but it is fascinating in much the same way as a train wreck.

In theory, it's just that - some are going to be saved, some aren't. And because God is omniscient and has laid out His own plan, this is the (quite obvious) result of that.

In practice, diehard Calvinists turn it into double predestination - ie., people are going to Hell because of whatever sinful act they're into at the time. This view is ignorant of other acts of God in the Bible; for example, the criminal that is saved on the cross. Or, an even better example for those that dig deeper into the New Testament, Saul/Paul. To say that a person is going to Hell because of their present action ignores both the depravity doctrine also in Calvinism and the timing of God's plan in the Bible.

Ummmm, double predestination has nothing to do with some idea of people are going to hell because of whatever sinful act they are into at the time..... double predestination is the doctrine that the saved are elected to salvation and the reprobate are elected to hell. That is ones final state was predetermined by God (either before or after willing the fall, depending on the type of 'lapsarian Calvinist soterlogy) Later conversions, even "Deathbed" conversions are perfectly fine with double predestination.

[New Vaticana]

Distruzio, what do you think of the old method of Bible reading where one chooses a particular section, say a paragraph or a few verses, reads it over several times, and then contemplates it for about an hour? I can't remember the name of it offhand, but it seems it's used by priests and I had to practice it at my school. Unfortunately, when I tried it I was never able to find a section that could hold my interest, and I just found myself asking a lot of questions and not being able to follow up on them unless I left the section at hand. Was I going about it wrong?

I see no problem with it, personally. I've never actually done it either.

I do know that it should be done in the correct mindset, lest it becomes divination. Where the reader expects the Word to speak to him about the days events. Protestants do this. They'll open the Bible to a random page each day and let their eyes settle on the first passage their inclined to and keep that passage in mind throughout the day, looking for God's signs that He has noticed their supreme devotion and ability to infallibly interpret His Word at random. If that sounds outlandish, it's b/c it is.

With all of that in mind, I cannot honestly comment on the correctness of your action, NV. Paying attention in Church is difficult enough without all the external distractions the world offers. Reading the Bible, even sections of it, alone without a Priest or other Christian to help and holding those sections in mind seems even more difficult. I suppose there are writings about such difficulties from the Church fathers as they explored the monastic life. Perhaps you could start there? Consulting the minds of men whose writings represent the timeless Mind of the Church has helped me greatly in my Christian life. Maybe it could help you as well, brother?

It seems divining was the intention of the practice. Odd that I got it in Catholic school, because divination is apparently condemned. Whether or not it is, though, it didn't help me and made me more confused; and if you think it sounds very difficult to do or outlandish, then I don't think I should continue trying. I'll look up some of the Church fathers' writings; do you have any in mind in particular?

[Menassa]

Yes but Isaiah 53 isn't speaking about Jesus.... missonries like to tell you so but they're wrong.

Also that bottom comment shows ignorance...... if you knew what Bar meant it wouldn't be so funny..... just because it's a language you can't understand doesn't mean it's funny.

ani yode'a et-ivrit va-et-arami
Yeshu bar Yosef = Jesus Joseph's son makes sense.
Yeshu ha Momzer = Yeshu Momzra = Jesus the Barstad makes sense.
Talmud prophecying that the next false Messiah will be Yeshu bar Stad makes no sense. "And the sign that this one is the FALSE Messiah is that his name will be a rude word in 2000 years time, in a completely different language altogether."

Or did they mean it in Yiddish? "bar Stadt" = son of the town = man about town. "And the sign that this one is the FALSE Messiah is that his name will be a rude word in 800 years time, in your OWN language altogether."

Do you really belief that God the Father is a portmanteau of Albus perceval Dumbledore and Obi wan Kenobi dispensing completely useless prophecies altogether?

If I were God AND anti-Xtian, I would prophecy beware Jesus bar Joseph, he is a false Messiah. If I were anti-Xtian Dumbledore, I would prophecy beware Jesus whose name will be rude centuries later, he is the true Messiah from a certain point of view.

Hmm perhaps you do understand the language..... The Talmud, does not prophesies..... The Talmud could have been talking about Jesus not saying: There will be a Jesus!

May I implore you.... Atah Yahodi?