Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Everyone can interpret things differently but the holy books are the most studied writings of all times and there is definitely a consensus and solid expertise about the meaning and true interpretation and applications of their teachings.

The Bible is considered to be a book of universality that transcends time. Which basically means that some things never change for humans no matter what era as are basic yet fundamental issues like finding meaning to life, conflict, faith, love, hate, morality, war, justice/injustice etc. and these are the elements that the most important writings and teachings encompass. The tricky part was for its "laws" to apply to the people that lived in the past as well as for people or our times and times to come. Obviously not everything that applied to people of ancient times will literally apply to our times but that doesn't discount the transcendent nature of the Bible. (And why some people take every single detail in the holy books completely literally is beyond me.) Some things that were written for ancient people will have a new and modern application yet they are not a pick and choose issue but rather an evolving issue. For example idolatry. Some Christian sects condemn religious imageries as they see this as idolatry based on the literate interpretations found in the Bible that condemns idol worship (ex. Exodus 20, 3-5). These commands against idol and figurine worship applied to people that worshiped multiple pagan gods and that basically made up stuff to worship (sometimes out of boredom). The broad understanding though is not that all religious symbols = idol worship, the understanding is that this command was not against people that believe in monotheism and have images and statues of monotheistic belief but against the worshipers of falsehoods. This command can be said to apply to modern times as the new idolatry is the rampant worship of shallowness, materialism, celebrities, etc.

freza wrote:Everyone can interpret things differently but the holy books are the most studied writings of all times and there is definitely a consensus and solid expertise about the meaning and true interpretation and applications of their teachings.

I have to disagree in respect of the Bible and Christianity - I do not believe there is a consensus about the 'one true meaning'.

I base this view on the multiplicity of sects with Christianity which dispute many fundamentals concepts - such as who one should pray to (is it ok to pray to the Virgin Mary, for example) and even on whether Trinity is a valid belief or not.

However, amongst the sects that do believe in Trinity and salvation through belief in Jesus' death on the cross - there is consensus on their interpretation of the Bible. My point is that those who selected the Bible had a prior belief set when they selected the books - and for me it is therefore no surprise that the Bible contains verses which back up their beliefs.

Now the argument is that the belief is right because the Bible says so.

This normally makes my head spin as we get into a circular argument along the lines, for instance I recently had the following sequence with a born again Christian.

Me: Jesus does not say or teach to pray to him, but rather to pray to God.
Christian: Agreed, but the Bible also says we should pray to him.
M. But Jesus did not teach this.
C. But what the Bible says elsewhere is equally valid.
M. Why?
C. Because it is the word of God.
M. But there are contradictions and additions - so some verses are not the word of God. How can you tell which is which?
C. Yes there are contradictions, but overall there is consensus on the meanings of the Bible. We trust our scholars.
M. Some other sects disagree - do you pray to Virgin Mary?
C. No - my interpretation of the Bible is right, the Catholics are being misled.
M. So there is disagreement?
C. Not on the big items. The main aspects of theology we all agree on.
M. But the Bible was compiled by people who shared this theology and disagreed with others who held different ones..
C. I'm not really familiar with the compilation of the bible - but I believe it all to be the word of God.
M. But it can't all be the word of God as it contains verses which are additions and other verses you choose not to follow.
C. You are just trying to confuse me!!

Sigh.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

I should have said a consensus with some exceptions of course. But I do believe that the consensus is there on many of the most important interpretations and applications of the Bible. Those that have different interpretations are usually those that have or choose to have a different translation of the Bible and we know how things can get lost in translation... Even modern Bible scholars still struggle with the most appropriate meaning of some words written in ancient Greek. There are also the oldest churches of Christianity that have deep rooted customs like some of the Orthodox Christians whose difference (compared to other Christian groups) can hardly be considered invalid. And then there are the clueless sects (like the Jehova's Witnesses) who have mixed some bizarre Scientology-like beliefs with Christianity and who take the Bible completely literally. I think we all have the capability of knowing what is a serious and scholarly minded movement and which is not.

Not all Bible scholars are religious or even affiliated with any religion, some are only academic/historians so I think it helps to see the Bible as a history book and as a work that has been investigated, translated and interpreted by a valid group of scholars for many many years and as accurately as possible. Again, go with the consensus that meets this criteria not with one that meets their own agenda. Now whatever some people choose to do with the most accurate interpretation...well that's their judgment not the Bible's.

I think that rather inconsequential disagreements amongst Christian groups should hardly be an issue. it's an issue when religion is twisted to justify the opposite of what it stands for. Such as the twisted stuff that GWB and some of these similar "Christian" people believe in.

Freza,

Let us agree to disagree.

I have not found Jehova's witnesses to be irrational or to have bizare 'scientology' like beliefs - but rather they only claim to have gone back to the original (and yes literal) teachings of the Bible. They claim to have gone and studied the Bible and reject all the trappings (such as Christmas on 25th December) that have come later. They don't have a new prophet, but rely on scholarly interpretation of the Bible - and this includes rejecting Trinity.

Also, the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism relate to the latter's interpretation of the Bible and the rejection of some of the canon of catholicism - again, another argument against your general point that there is consensus of interpretation of the Bible amongst Christians.

In my experience and studies, there isn't - there is a healthy debate amongst theologians today, and there was an unhealthy period of persecution and censorship of 'heretical' Christian views in the past.

That said, most Christians are unaware of the theological debates and believe what their particular church tells them Christian theology teaches - so this does give the illusion of a consensus - but this illusion very quickly vanishes when one delves into topics raised in this thread.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:Everyone can interpret things differently but the holy books are the most studied writings of all times and there is definitely a consensus and solid expertise about the meaning and true interpretation and applications of their teachings.

The existance of so many different sects of each religion proves that there is not a consensus at all. There are so many religions that you can almost choose any that matches your interpretation of the original interpretations... err writings.

shafique wrote:I have to disagree in respect of the Bible and Christianity - I do not believe there is a consensus about the 'one true meaning'.

This is because the cultures in which Christianity has existed do not prevent anyone changing a few rules to suit themselves.
How long do you think that I would last if I started an Islamic based religion that allows followers to eat pork.
My point is that just because you think that it is wrong, doesn't mean that I can't interpret it differently.

But Islam is by no means immune to change. You seem to be overlooking the fact that it has it's own fair share of factions. Sunni, Shite, Taliban to name just a few.

benwj wrote:This is because the cultures in which Christianity has existed do not prevent anyone changing a few rules to suit themselves.
How long do you think that I would last if I started an Islamic based religion that allows followers to eat pork.
My point is that just because you think that it is wrong, doesn't mean that I can't interpret it differently.

But Islam is by no means immune to change. You seem to be overlooking the fact that it has it's own fair share of factions. Sunni, Shite, Taliban to name just a few.

You make some good points.

However, the phrase 'cultures in which Christianity existed' is a little puzzling to me. Christianity started off in Palestine amongst Semitic/Middle East culture. The earliest churches were of African culture (Assyrian/Ethiopic as well as Coptic); Roman and Greek - but mostly it was an Eastern religion. Is this what you meant, or did you want to use the word 'Western' ?

Most of these 'cultures' did modify Christianity to suit their prior beliefs and also changed over time.

As for Islam - I think I pointed out the fact muslims are divided into many sects DESPITE the fact that the Quran has been uncorrupted and does not contain any contradictions or abrogated verses (and hence why I started a new thread on the subject).

As for starting a muslim sect that eats pork - I think you'll find that you won't be the first to do this. There are some off-shoots of Islam that do think it's ok to eat pork and not pray 5 times a day etc. I think that the Druze will fall into this category - they trace their religion back to a branch of Shia Islam, but now have beliefs that include re-incarnation, and the Druze I have met eat pork and drink alcohol (although this could be just them ignoring their teachings - but they did tell me about not praying and reincarnation being their beliefs).

All that said, I agree with your basic premise though - there is no consensus in interpretation!


Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

While people have different beliefs about what Christianity is, that does not make them correct or religious authorities.

As far as Jesus saying he didn't abolish the laws, he was saying that with the intent to show that he wasn't rejecting God's laws, but rather that the purpose of the old law was to stand in until the new law came about and the old was fulfilled.

Quran has been uncorrupted

Link's not working. Look up the Sanaa manuscripts on wikipedia.

valkyrie wrote:
While people have different beliefs about what Christianity is, that does not make them correct or religious authorities.

They (the leaders/priests/theologians of the different sects) believe they are correct and have the religious authority.

valkyrie wrote:As far as Jesus saying he didn't abolish the laws, he was saying that with the intent to show that he wasn't rejecting God's laws, but rather that the purpose of the old law was to stand in until the new law came about and the old was fulfilled.

That is one interpretation.

Jesus also said 'Faith without works is dead' - which my Christian colleagues tell me means that if one has faith one obeys the laws of God. Therefore Christians still follow the laws of God, and Jesus said he did not come to change the law.

valkyrie wrote:

Quran has been uncorrupted

Link's not working. Look up the Sanaa manuscripts on wikipedia.

Ok, will do - perhaps I'll start a new thread on the fact (as I understand it) that the Quran is uncorrupted.

Cheers,
Shafique

Jesus also said 'Faith without works is dead' - which my Christian colleagues tell me means that if one has faith one obeys the laws of God. Therefore Christians still follow the laws of God, and Jesus said he did not come to change the law.

Christ also said the Sabbath was made for man, man wasn't made for the sabbath.

If your interpretation is correct, then Christ is condemning his own actions when he regularly broke the sabbath.

Edit: It's actually sana'a

valkyrie wrote:

Jesus also said 'Faith without works is dead' - which my Christian colleagues tell me means that if one has faith one obeys the laws of God. Therefore Christians still follow the laws of God, and Jesus said he did not come to change the law.

Christ also said the Sabbath was made for man, man wasn't made for the sabbath.

If your interpretation is correct, then Christ is condemning his own actions when he regularly broke the sabbath.

Or alternatively, the Bible's contradictions are evidence of its corruption?

I looked up the Sanaa documents - it talks of minor variations, but doesn't list what these are. However, the Quran's primary means of preservation was not written documents but rather the memorisation by thousands of people. The history of the compilation of the written Quran records instances of textual errors in the writings and that these were always checked against the oral recitation of those who had memorised the Quran.

This was the practice going back to the time of the revelation of the Quran. Only when non-native Arab speakers started misprounouncing the Quranic text and therefore inadvertantly changing the meaning was there a campaign to standardise the text (i.e. the written representation of the oral revelation) and record the words in the Quraish dialect of Arabic.

A misconception is that the different pronunciations of the same Arabic words (Quirat sp?) represented different versions of the Quran. The underlying word was the same, but it was pronounced differently by different tribes. Arabic is written phonetically (then and now - but then it was a different script) and hence different pronunciations would be written differently - but the underlying word and meaning would be the same.

That said, happy to discuss if you do think the Quran was corrupted/changed - the wiki entry did not say what words were different, so I can't really comment further.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

Agreeing to disagreeing is fine by me but I'm not sure you completely understood my viewpoint. The consensus that I mentioned for me lies on seeing the study of the Bible as a historical book and an important work of literature which has been translated and interpreted as such by academics and historians regardless of religion. If you want to talk about different religious interpretations, Christianity's bloody history, etc. that's one thing, but to see the Bible as a work of literature stripped of religious agenda is another thing. Sure there are still many mysteries to the Bible and debates but I think debates are a good thing, don't you? But to think that the interpretation of the Bible can be completely different from one spectrum to another is just not reasonable. Not when you're talking about serious and long established groups.

About Jehova's..hhm now you might know a lot of rational Jehova's Witnesses, I know some myself, they're very nice people but their sect is anything but scholarly and not exactly rational. Look at the history of the JW. It was only created in the late 1800s and they've gone through very extreme "doctrine" changes in this short period of their existence. The JW leaders predicted the end of the world...umm, didn't happen. At one time they worshiped Jesus, now they don't. This is not religious evolution, this is not having a sense of direction. Though their intentions I'm sure are good. If you're into exposing contradictions, you will find countless contradictions with the JW.

And I insist, interpreting all parts of the Bible solely at face value does not equal scholarly work.

Benj
I don't think one can say that there are many Christian sects or at least not many noteworthy ones. Recently there are proliferations of some groups but I think this has more to do with ministries (their agendas) and their impact on local poor populations in many developing countries and also media driven ministries in developed countries. Protestants have offshoot groups but really it's mostly two main schools of thought (Catholic / Protestant) that in the end regardless of ongoing debates, differences in interpretations, Trinity or not, are still followers of Jesus.

freza wrote:Shafique,

Agreeing to disagreeing is fine by me but I'm not sure you completely understood my viewpoint. The consensus that I mentioned for me lies on seeing the study of the Bible as a historical book and an important work of literature which has been translated and interpreted as such by academics and historians regardless of religion. If you want to talk about different religious interpretations, Christianity's bloody history, etc. that's one thing, but to see the Bible as a work of literature stripped of religious agenda is another thing. Sure there are still many mysteries to the Bible and debates but I think debates are a good thing, don't you? But to think that the interpretation of the Bible can be completely different from one spectrum to another is just not reasonable. Not when you're talking about serious and long established groups.

No, your explanation is exactly what I was disagreeing on.

There is dispute amongst scholars of the Bible - not just between religious practioners in different sects.

This actually dates back to the compilation of the Bible with the Arian controversy - just look up Arianism and you will find Arius had a following before and after the compilation of the Bible and that his views were part of Christianity (until some sections decided to outlaw them).

freza wrote:About Jehova's..hhm now you might know a lot of rational Jehova's Witnesses, I know some myself, they're very nice people but their sect is anything but scholarly and not exactly rational. Look at the history of the JW. It was only created in the late 1800s and they've gone through very extreme "doctrine" changes in this short period of their existence. The JW leaders predicted the end of the world...umm, didn't happen. At one time they worshiped Jesus, now they don't. This is not religious evolution, this is not having a sense of direction. Though their intentions I'm sure are good. If you're into exposing contradictions, you will find countless contradictions with the JW.

Same can be said about most Christian churches - eg are women priests allowed or not? Is homosexuality allowed or not? Is the Pope the divine representative on earth or not? etc

freza wrote:And I insist, interpreting all parts of the Bible solely at face value does not equal scholarly work.

I was not equating this as scholarly work, I was referring to works of scholars of the Bible and theologians who interpret the meanings of the words of the Bible (what the words mean in terms of Dogma).

freza wrote:Benj
I don't think one can say that there are many Christian sects or at least not many noteworthy ones. Recently there are proliferations of some groups but I think this has more to do with ministries (their agendas) and their impact on local poor populations in many developing countries and also media driven ministries in developed countries. Protestants have offshoot groups but really it's mostly two main schools of thought (Catholic / Protestant) that in the end regardless of ongoing debates, differences in interpretations, Trinity or not, are still followers of Jesus.

Freza - do you really believe there aren't a significant number of Christian sects and that the differences between them are minor?

You seem to ignore all the Orthodox Christians (by characterising Christianity as either Catholic or Protestant).

Are you just referring to your hometown perchance?

Cheers,
Shafique

that's why I acknowledged that there are mysteries and debates, you did see that? Scholarly disputes are normal. They are part of every major work of literature and important periods of history, I mean, what's new and unusual about scholarly disputes? So there are disputes about the Bible, so what? Like I said, debate is good. Do disputes invalidate the Bible, no I don't think, unless you're a very arrogant person who likes to invalidate history changing works of literature (but surely Shafique, you're not that arrogant hehe)

Some groups allow women priests, some don't. How is this compared to a group that worships Jesus only to completely turn around and change paths or to declare the world would end on more than one occasion? These are just examples, what I'm saying is that people with common sense know what groups have experience in seriously studying the Bible and what groups don't.

Again I mentioned the proliferation of Christian groups, yes there are several emerging groups and they're getting a lot of converts, who is denying this? But the strongest in terms of schools of thought, population, traditions, etc. are the Catholic and Protestants, who can deny this also? I've mentioned the Orthodox in other posts that I didn't mention them in this last one means nothing. Shafique I think sometimes you read too much into some things but not enough into others..

freza wrote:that's why I acknowledged that there are mysteries and debates, you did see that? Scholarly disputes are normal. They are part of every major work of literature and important periods of history, I mean, what's new and unusual about scholarly disputes? So there are disputes about the Bible, so what? Like I said, debate is good. Do disputes invalidate the Bible, no I don't think, unless you're a very arrogant person who likes to invalidate history changing works of literature (but surely Shafique, you're not that arrogant hehe)

So, the rift between the Eastern Church and Catholicism, the rift between Protestants and Catholics are good natured 'scholarly disputes'?

The early church didn't think so when it executed many thousands for heresy.

I do take exception to being accused of ignoring or re-writing history when I have been citing history in defence of what I see is an obvious fact - there are divisions within Christianity despite having one bible.

freza wrote:Some groups allow women priests, some don't. How is this compared to a group that worships Jesus only to completely turn around and change paths or to declare the world would end on more than one occasion? These are just examples, what I'm saying is that people with common sense know what groups have experience in seriously studying the Bible and what groups don't.

But what does the Bible say on the matter? Does it not say women should not even speak in Church?

freza wrote:Again I mentioned the proliferation of Christian groups, yes there are several emerging groups and they're getting a lot of converts, who is denying this? But the strongest in terms of schools of thought, population, traditions, etc. are the Catholic and Protestants, who can deny this also? I've mentioned the Orthodox in other posts that I didn't mention them in this last one means nothing. Shafique I think sometimes you read too much into some things but not enough into others..

Sorry Freza, did you not read my reference to Arius?

His group was around +before+ the bible was compiled, so how can this be characterised as 'emerging groups'?

I also disagree that the Catholic/Protestant difference is the biggest in Christianity - I would suggest that it is the difference between the 'Orthodox' Churches of Greece, Russia etc and the Western Church which trace back to Rome.

Cheers,
Shafique

take exceptions to what I said, could be a good thing actually! I'm still your fan!

the rifts between religions are rifts between religions but in these previous lines I'm clearly referring to the validity of viewing the Bible in a scholarly and historical view, without seeing it through a religious affiliation, I only said it oh about three times.

There are division in Christianity, ok, what else is new? I'm not disagreeing with you on this, divisions and differences are there. I guess some people focus on divisions instead of focusing on common ground, well ok then.

When I referred to emerging groups I thought I was clear that I was talking about new groups like those going after the poor in developing countries or appealing through media outlets like some of the newer Evangelical movements.
I was not referring to Arius, but one can hardly consider that breakaway people, groups or doctrines are unique to Christianity.

Also I did NOT say that the Catholic/Protestant difference was the biggest, what I implied is that these groups were the most influential.

I tell you my personal views: that the established religions (in general), and these include established sub-groups, whose aim is to fulfill the spiritual needs of their people are all good. However, I do criticize some sects, cults and politics masquerading as religion, and I do question some aspects of established religions, and criticize certain practices, but that's another issue, that's not the main issue. The main issue for me personally is faith. (I also criticize narrow minded and bitter atheists who try to squash believes that they don't share but surely not all atheists are bitter and narrow-minded and I can't invalidate people that choose not to believe in God). As to established religions, their laws, traditions, beliefs, books, might not be what I personally believe in, they might not be my truths but I don't think this gives me the right to invalidate the truth of others...

shafique wrote:However, the phrase 'cultures in which Christianity existed' is a little puzzling to me. Christianity started off in Palestine amongst Semitic/Middle East culture. The earliest churches were of African culture (Assyrian/Ethiopic as well as Coptic); Roman and Greek - but mostly it was an Eastern religion. Is this what you meant, or did you want to use the word 'Western' ?

I didn't want to use the word western because, as you have pointed out, other cultures have also modified christianity to suit theirs. I would be surprised if a single country influenced by christianity did not develop its own form of the religion.
However, I did have Henry VIII in mind when I made the comment and more recently the multitude of christian religions that have formed in each western country.
Having said that, I still beleive that it would be easier to start a spin off to islam in a western country than an islamic one.

shafique wrote:As for Islam - I think I pointed out the fact muslims are divided into many sects DESPITE the fact that the Quran has been uncorrupted and does not contain any contradictions or abrogated verses (and hence why I started a new thread on the subject).

If someone interprets the Quran differently to another, isn't that a contradiction?

Thanks for telling me about the Druze. I might want to convert one day and that is handy to know.

This actually dates back to the compilation of the Bible with the Arian controversy - just look up Arianism and you will find Arius had a following before and after the compilation of the Bible and that his views were part of Christianity (until some sections decided to outlaw them).

Actually, the majority of the NT was already compiled well before the time of Arius. The only exception are the books of Hebrews and Revelation. When Arius tried to use "reason" to say that Christ was NOT the Son of God, he began to preach something new. This was not an ancient strain of Christianity. It was a novelty. So, yes, Christianity has always considered Christ the Son of God.

The wide spread practise of Christianity owes a lot to Emperor Constantine more then anyone else. At a time when there was a lot of gods kicking around he saw it as perfect way of ruling with even more power and reach.

After that the English took it to whole new level with the crusades.

My understanding is that St Paul also advocated this practice in the NT, and hence the arguments about it being an OT law that was no longer required in the new covenant should be moot (for Paul would not advocate a law that did not still apply - I would think).

Paul was advocating a law that he believed still needed to be applied to the women of the 1st century church.

When you read 1 Corinthians 11, several things come to light. First and foremost, that Paul is not talking culturally, because he is talking to the church at Corinth, a church that was comprised of a variety of different cultures, and religious beliefs prior to conversion. the members of Corinth are coming from all walks of life, and from all different backgrounds.

Next, you find that Paul advocates a head covering, but then later explains that nature has provided a head covering in the form of long hair. Women who wear their hair long do not need to wear a covering, but women with short hair, scripturally, still should.

The OT law does not prescribe hair length as an option. In the OT, they wore veils.

and hence the arguments about it being an OT law that was no longer required in the new covenant should be moot

Even if you ignore the abrogation of the old law in the New Testament, the disregard for Jewish law and custom was immediate in the church. The struggle resulted in the Ebionite heresy. The movement however, never reflected a large portion of Christianity and was not long lived. From then on, I can think of no theologian who has ever suggested that Christians are still bound by the old law. The confusion now is not among theologians, but among adherents who are unaware of the theological stands of the bodies of which they are apart. Again, no modern Christian body that I know of still holds that the Law is binding on Christians.

As for a consensus among theologians there has never been one. There wasn\'t a perfect consensus between Peter and Paul, Paul and Barnabas, and on and on. There have however been consistent themes and stances of the church that have not faltered either at all or not until these modern times. So while perfect consensus may not exist, the official stance of the church (by that I mean every movement of any popular force) was, for nearly 1,600 years that all Christians must be baptized. The unbroken stance of the church has been that Christians do not get abortions. And so on...

No perfect consensus exists, but there are long standing, biblically supported stances which may be considered to have the general consensus of Christians now and in history.

This actually dates back to the compilation of the Bible with the Arian controversy - just look up Arianism and you will find Arius had a following before and after the compilation of the Bible and that his views were part of Christianity (until some sections decided to outlaw them).

Your first statement, that biblical scholars began disputing with Arius is seriously flawed. Theologians began disputing with Paul and Peter. The Bible itself records disputes between the two great apostles. Furthermore, you need to lose the idea that Arianism was some new shockwave to hit the church. Many more serious heresies preceded it. In the middle and late second century, two critical heresies would arise, Montanism and Marcionism. It should be noted that Montanism lasted longer than Arianism did as a major movement in the world. Biblical theologians debated over that. They debated over Sabellianism, which is the opposite of Arianism (though to be accurate, Arianism is the opposite of Sabellianism since the later predates the former by some 150 years). They debated over Monarchianism, Gnosticism, Adoptionism, and Dontaism (which also greatly outlasted Arianism) all before Arius was even a twinkle in his parents eye.

Second, your view of the development of the Bible is sadly two dimensional. It wasn\'t Arianism, but the aforementioned Marcionism that led to the development of the canon. Marcion is the first theologian we know of to declare what constituted the Bible. His bible had a \"butchered\" (to steal Tertullian\'s word) version of Luke and a selection of Pauline epistles in it. It was this rejection of documents key in traditional Christianity that led to \"orthodox\" Christians beginning to formulate the canon. Beginning with Justin Martyr and his disciple Tatian we see the orthodox acceptance of the four gospels and their theological defense of them. As early as 170, there are attempts at Christians to formulate a counter creed to correct Marcion. By the time of Origen, there is a basic consensus on the 27 books of the New Testament. He not only lists them but commentates on authorship and the validity of their general acceptance. You have the same books being used in Rome, North Africa, Alexandria, Antioch, and Gaul with the only exceptions being Revelation and Hebrews which were still contested in places (one or the other, depending on the region). Again, all of this is long before Arius.

Finally, the idea that some sections of Christianity outlawed Arius is ludicrous. The largest of the ecumenical councils of bishops gathered together to outlaw him not very long after his ideas appeared. While Arianism persisted, it wasn\'t because it found great acceptance until the ruthless Nicenes forced them out. You\'ll find that bishops and episcopal legates are deposed, tortured, brought up on false charges, and even murdered by the Arians trying to secure their position. Sozomenus, an ancient church historian, records an incident where the Arian emperor burned a boat in the harbor with 40 Nicenes aboard rather than hear their case.

That is one interpretation.

Jesus also said \'Faith without works is dead\' - which my Christian colleagues tell me means that if one has faith one obeys the laws of God. Therefore Christians still follow the laws of God, and Jesus said he did not come to change the law.

It is actually the only interpretation offered by theologians. You are simply proof texting and real theology requires more than that.

Frederick,

Thanks for the interesting post.

I'll try and be brief in my reply.

Firstly thank you for confirming my reading of Christian history that there has not been consensus on the meaning of the Bible.

Concerning Arius - I presented him as an example of a significant difference of interpretation of Biblical teaching that actually took place before, during and after the Council of Nicea when the current Bible was finally canonised (if that is the right term). This was in response to Freza saying there was a consensus in interpretation and that 'sects' within Christianity are a recent phenomenon.

I do not think I said Arius was the first to hold different opinions - apologies if I gave this impression.

I agree with you characterisation of the teachings of St Paul - it should be read in context and can be subject to interpretation. This goes for the rest of the Bible too - but scholars and theolgians will disagree on what should be sacrosanct and what is subject to interpretation.

I totally agree that current dogma is that observing the law is not required for salvation, but my head spins when I listen to the argument that having faith means you will follow the law, and that intentionally not following the law means you don't have faith.

Thinking linearly (and mathematically) salvation comes from having faith. Not following God's law is an indication you don't have faith. Therefore to attain salvation you must follow the law (because this is the natural consequence of having faith).

Then, however, they say the law isn't binding! If one deliberately chooses to break each law, does one attain salvation ? If the answer is 'yes' - provided you have faith - then the law isn't binding. If the answer is 'no' - because this shows you don't have faith - then I fail to see why the law isn't binding. I've yet to have this explained to me satisfactorily - perhaps you can have a go?

Practically, this is no different from the philosophy of Islam (or Judaism for that matter).

As for St Paul's instructions to women to cover their hair and not speak in Church - the Bible does not say this is limited to the 1st century, but as you say it has been interpreted this way. Therefore the decision of a reader of the Bible is to decide which verses to follow and which to not.

Finally, your last sentence speaks volumes.

To me it says that Christianity depends on the interpretation of scholars/priests/theologians - a person picking up the Bible and trying to live their lives by the words of God will not find true salvation and may be totally confused if he only reads the first half of the book!

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:This was in response to Freza saying there was a consensus in interpretation and that 'sects' within Christianity are a recent phenomenon.

I do think there's a consensus in interpretation, there is a lot more common ground amongst established Christians groups than differences. You only seem to focus on differences, you must have your reasons... I stand by the consensus comments but I never said that sects are a recent phenomenon! Surely everyone that is familiar with the history of Judeo-Christianity knows that sects have always been around. I mentioned groups that have sprung up in recent decades, or 100 years or so compared to movements that have been around for two thousand years or so, and I suggested that groups that have been around and studied the Bible for many years (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) might have more of a solid interpretation than groups that don't have much of a history or a willingness to stick to an accurate interpretation...

Freza,

You are right - amongst the Christian groups that agree with each other on the interpretation of the Bible, there is consensus.

If you class all the other groups who call themselves Christians, but are called 'heretics' by the others, then you are completely correct.

My mistake was to point out that Christian in-fighting took place before the Bible was compiled - and the disputes were over the interpretation of the Bible. I was finding it difficult to reconcile this historical fact with the statement that there has always been consensus on the interpretation of the Bible.

Have you seen the film 'the life of Brian'? Did you laugh at the scene where they discussed 'what did the Romans ever do for us'??

And, as pointed out by Frederick, you need to consult scholars to decide which verses of the Bible one should follow and which ones you should ignore - for to take the Bible at its word is incorrect.

For me, that sounds like you should follow the word of men rather than the word of God - but I'm approaching it from a Muslim perspective where God's word is clear and sacred. The opening verses of Ch 2 of the Quran are instructive:

This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
Who believe in the unseen and observe prayer and spend out of what We have provided for them.
And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee and they have firm faith in the hereafter.
It is they who follow the guidance from their Lord and it is they who shall prosper.
Those who have disbelieved - it being alike to them whether thou warn them or warn them not - they will not believe.
Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering; and for them is a grievous chastisement.

Cheers,
Shafique

you need to consult scholars to decide which verses of the Bible one should follow and which ones you should ignore - for to take the Bible at its word is incorrect.

I think the problem is selective reading.

slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. -Koran

Valkyrie,

There's taking a verse out of context or omitting the qualifications (such as 'fight only until injustice stops or the enemy offers truce') and there are verses which theologians say do not apply (abbrogation of verses - such as Leviticus saying it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery).


Cheers,
Shafique

There's taking a verse out of context or omitting the qualifications (such as 'fight only until injustice stops or the enemy offers truce')

That's one interpretation.

and there are verses which theologians say do not apply (abbrogation of verses - such as Leviticus saying it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery).

I'm sorry, not sure I read that right. Are you suggesting that the most accurate method would be to blindly ignore the author's intent and instead take everything literally?

valkyrie wrote:I'm sorry, not sure I read that right. Are you suggesting that the most accurate method would be to blindly ignore the author's intent and instead take everything literally?

Where the author is God and the instruction is clear and without qualification, yes.

Where the 'intent' is someones interpretation and leads to ignoring the literal word of the Bible, then aren't we putting more credence in the opinion of man than in the word of God?

Cheers,
Shafique

For Freza - here is a quote from Karen Armstrong's book 'History of God' - Ch 8 (I reached this passage today, and thought I'd post it - she also talks about the other dissensions in the early church, but I think we've addressed those in the previous posts)



Indeed, by the end of the sixteenth century, many people in Europe felt that religion had been gravely discredited. They were ed by the
killing of Catholics by Protestants and Protestants by Catholics. Hundreds of people had died as martyrs for holding views that it was impossible to prove one way or the other. Sects preaching a bewildering variety of doctrines that were deemed essential for salvation had proliferated alarmingly. There was now too much theological choice: many felt paralysed and distressed by the variety of religious interpretations on offer. Some may have felt that faith was becoming harder to achieve than ever. It was, therefore, significant that at this point in the history of the Western God, people started spotting 'atheists', who seemed to be as numerous as the 'witches', the old enemies of God and allies of the devil. It was said that these 'atheists' had denied the existence of God, were acquiring converts to their sect and undermining the fabric of society. Yet in fact a full-blown atheism in the sense that we use the word today was impossible. As Lucien Febvre has shown in his classic book The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century, the conceptual difficulties in the way of a complete denial of God's existence at this time were so great as to be insurmountable. From birth and baptism to death and burial in the churchyard, religion dominated the life of every single man and woman.

Hence why I disagreed with the view that there was/is consensus on interpretation of the Bible!

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,
Never seen that movie, will keep it mind.
Not to criticize you, but I do see that you pick things to support your views on this particular matter very selectively like Valk said.

It's no secret that Christianity went through turmoil on many occasions. In fact, it happened right when Christianity was being born, when Jesus was slowly dying on the cross and right after his death his community was left in despair and disoriented, his disciples had to pick themselves up from this sense of despair in a most challenging way, I'm not talking about sense of loss only but a sense of "what do we do now?"

What you quote here is not new to me or contradicts from my views that consensus on interpretation is there. You again focus on religious groups rather than scholarly views. I prefer to see the bigger picture. Christian groups went through trying times, experienced confusion - no doubt. Some contemporary Christian groups still experience confusion - no doubt either. But let us not forget, and I think sometimes you do forget, that all this insanity that Christianity went through was created by men, not by the essence of the teachings of the Bible, which has been studied through hundreds of years of trial and error to achieve a standard of common understanding.

I also see that you compare the Christian holy book with the Islamic holy book and you measure the Bible by what you think it should be according to how Islam views their holy book. Which is an error in itself for several reasons. The most glaring one is that what works for one group might not necessarily work for another and that's perfectly OK, differences don't diminish another group's philosophy and aim - different approaches often lead to the same aim. The Bible is not supposed to be taken as a book authored by God. The Bible is meant to include the words of God of course, "God quotes" if you will, but it was not written by God. Not everything in it are exact "quotes" but rather words inspired by God and then there are the teachings, philosophy, history, poetry, mythology, and prose etc. It is a complex work that I repeat yet once again, should not all be taken literally. To do so is to choose to be misinformed.

freza wrote:What you quote here is not new to me or contradicts from my views that consensus on interpretation is there. You again focus on religious groups rather than scholarly views. I prefer to see the bigger picture.

With respect, the bit I highlighted talked about the variance of interpretation of the Bible on the point of salvation - and this debate took place within Catholicism and Protestantism. The writer is at pains to point this out.

You on the one hand say Christianity had periods of turmoil - but that this did not amount to variations in interpretation by scholars, but the quote I gave you shows that this was precisely the case, scholars disputed on the meaning of the Bible to the point that there are many sects.

I however agree with you that to reconcile the apparent contradictions in the literal words of the Bible you have to resort to looking for the 'spirit' of the words - but I have been arguing this all along (at least I thought I was). It is in this interpretation that the differences have arisen - including the sects who do not believe in Trinity (for example), which were welcomed as part of the Christian church at the Council of Nicea when the participants debated and selected the books that would make up the Bible.

Cheers
Shafique

shafique wrote:You on the one hand say Christianity had periods of turmoil - but that this did not amount to variations in interpretation by scholars, but the quote I gave you shows that this was precisely the case, scholars disputed on the meaning of the Bible to the point that there are many sects.

But Shafique, that is not exactly where I think the consensus lies in the history of time. Getting to a correct understanding took time and that's why I previously alluded to this:

...teachings of the Bible, which has been studied through hundreds of years of trial and error to achieve a standard of common understanding

There is correct info out there, that some groups choose to not see it or see it only selectively is due to the stubborn nature of mankind, to ambitions to uncover something that's not there, and perhaps the way Christianity is set up to be, the open-ness of it, perhaps its due to the fact that many Christians haven't grown in understanding beyond childhood OT Bible stories, but sadly that's not unique to religion, look at world politics, the truth is out there, sometimes one needs to dig it up but many times it's staring us in the face, yet many choose not to see it.

This entire fixation on differences though, is a distraction to what really matters. Believing or not in trinity doesn't matter, what should matter to Christians is how they lead their lives.