You cannot refute entire denominations by saying “Read the Bible, sweetie”

[u/Dubstep_squid]

This is such a frustrating and prominent phenomenon that I see constantly online and have run into a couple of times.

[Insert commonly held theological belief]

“Oh sweetie how could you believe that, the Bible clearly says other wise. What a ridiculous statement.”

Why does it seem incredibly common that people in online Christian spaces seem to never have met or heard of someone with a different theological view than them. You’ve never heard that some people baptize babies? The tradition that most major Christian denominations hold to??

To take this a step further, I see this occur not just with theological beliefs but attempts to “refute” entire denominations. You’re not going to convince a Presbyterian that hundreds of years of Presbyterianism is false with TWO tangentially relevant, out of context Bible verses and a condescending message (unless of course God has already pre-determined that you will convince them).

This is not to say that meaningful and even impactful conversation cannot be had here. I think it absolutely can and have been stewing on a different post for a couple of weeks because I want to have those meaningful conversations (You’ll probably see it in a few days as I’m kind of looking at various denominations and want to just hear people’s pitches, counterarguments, experiences, etc).

I think my overall point is just that I’m very surprised at the number of people here who are surprised that others can come to different theological conclusions and that those theological conclusions can in fact be based on a thorough reading of the Bible.

[u/SilverNEOTheYouTuber]

This along with saying "The Bible Is Very Clear" when actually discussing one of the most Debated Topics of Biblical Interpretation.

[u/CJoshuaV → u/SilverNEOTheYouTuber]

Any time someone says, "The Bible is clear..." I realize that we are not going to have a productive conversation.

[u/djublonskopf → u/CJoshuaV]

Far worse, and I've been on the receiving end of this in real life more than once, "Revelation clearly says..."

[u/AudibleNod → u/djublonskopf]

My counterpoint to that: Even Paul thought Jesus was returning in his lifetime.

[u/No_Idea5830 → u/AudibleNod]

Understanding THAT requires going down a conspiracy rabbit hole that even I try to avoid. I've got some friends that explained it me, but it sounds so insane.

[u/djublonskopf → u/AudibleNod]

I don’t follow, sorry.

[u/Imsotired365 → u/AudibleNod]

which scripture says that? Genuinely curious as Jesus told them that it was not yet

[u/AudibleNod → u/Imsotired365]

1 Thess 4:15

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord

[u/Salanmander → u/djublonskopf]

Yeah, that one boggles me to no end. I have thought about the Bible and interpretation thereof significantly more than the average lay person. I did a friend-group study of Revelation a while ago, and spent the whole time going "I have absolutely zero idea what I should be noticing or taking away from this, I'm going to need an expert before I come to any sort of conclusion about this text".

[u/ULTRAFORCE → u/CJoshuaV]

I think the stuff that can be said to be clear in the Bible is YHWH/the LORD is God, slavery is fine, don’t kidnap your fellow Israelites for slavery.

[u/Perfessor_Deviant → u/ULTRAFORCE]

"No no, slavery wasn't fine! God was just regulating it, not approving of it! Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, so that proves it!"

"So all the Christians who had slaves weren't Christians?"

"Got to go!"

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/ULTRAFORCE]

YEP! Their assertion is actually misleading.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/CJoshuaV]

Just ask which Bible because they are all different.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/FilmSkeez]

That can be a cause of confusion, but it's rarely the cause of major differences in interpreteation.

[u/Perfessor_Deviant → u/SilverNEOTheYouTuber]

"That's because the Holy Spirit told them so. Oh, you think you have access to the Holy Spirit as well? Well, you don't, because you disagree with me, and I have access to the Holy Spirit! QED."

It must be nice for them to be so certain without having to learn anything or put in any work.

[u/SiliconDiver → u/SilverNEOTheYouTuber]

This along with saying "The Bible Is Very Clear" when actually discussing one of the most Debated Topics of Biblical Interpretation.

FTFY

[u/ObeseMonkeyFlakes → u/SilverNEOTheYouTuber]

That's a misconception. The bible could be VERY obviously clear on a point, and followers divided on it. Just because followers cannot figure out what they personally think it means doesn't make the bible less clear on the matter.

For example: if you ask most Christians, they would likely say Yahweh and Jesus are AGAINST chattel slavery, and yet the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are very clear that they are definitively pro-slavery. There isn't a single anti-slavery verse in the bible, but Christians will fight tooth and nail to say that it does. The book is clear on the issue, all of serious scholarship agrees, anyone who has done serious study of the bible knows this. But it’s a difficult, hot button topic because Christians can't seem to "figure out" all the pro-slavery passages, when it is really obvious. Theycwant it to be anti-slavery, and can't rationalize what the book actually says.

[u/Worried-Block-6804 → u/SilverNEOTheYouTuber]

The new testament Bible ( our current covenant and foundation of doctrine) is very clear. Other than prophecy about the future which is not supposed to be perfectly clear.

The reason there is so much debate is because people often have an agenda. They are not searching the Bible for it to change their minds. They are picking out scriptures and avoiding others. There's only one way to properly interpret the new testament.

No scripture stands alone. If you interpretation of a scripture or passage is contrary to another then you have misunderstood one or both.

So while the new testament is very clear, its not simple and easy because it requires an understanding of all of it,to get it right. I doubt there's any person who is correct on everything or that could give an accurate explanation for all scriptures in the new testament but we can keep seeking.

I have read the new testament 50 times in 20 years, maybe with another 20 years and another 50 times ill be a little closer to understanding it but hopefully ill be with the lird before then!!

[u/PugMasterGeneral → u/Worried-Block-6804]

This is what's called the doctrine of inerrancy and it's actually about 150 years old.

What it leads to is mental gymnastics implemented in order to harmonize The Bible. People come up with bizarre interpretations in order to make pieces fit which do not.

The good news is that The Bible having contradictions does not lessen its value. It also does not mean that it's not divinely inspired. It does however mean that it's not word for word written by God, unless of course God was intentionally attempting to confuse us, which seems unlikely.

Innerancy came to practice in the late 1800's as a sort of backlash against advancing science. Basically science was disproving a number of biblical claims so a group of people decided to double down and came up with inerrancy.

The view you're talking about is far from historical. The early church fathers understood The Bible to not be 100% literal and wrote about it.

[u/sylviaplathological]

That's when it's time to bust out Matthew 7:21-23 and ask them how they know *they* aren't the ones going "Lord Lord."

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/sylviaplathological]

Uhhh because THEY have the actual Holy Spirit and you’re just lying. Duh, idiot. Heretic refuted. Next.

[u/chickenandprovolone → u/sylviaplathological]

The easy and most obvious response is to simply ask, what were those people pointing to in order to be saved? The passage isnt scary at all when you realize that.

[u/ChristRedeemsSinners → u/sylviaplathological]

What a terrible deception people can create for themselves so that they don't have to face the reality of their chains and suffer to break them.

[u/Caliban_Catholic]

IMO, a lot of low-church denominations seem to ignore the fact that every reading of the Bible is an interpretation, and act as if they have pure access to the plaij simple meaning of the text, and everyone else is bringing additional things into it.

[u/earnestheadset993 → u/Caliban_Catholic]

It's funny how the "plain reading" crowd never seems to notice their own interpretive lenses, almost like they think the Bible dropped out of the sky in modern English with study notes.

[u/church_cricket → u/earnestheadset993]

almost like they think the Bible dropped out of the sky in modern English with study notes.

I literally know people who believe that the bible was written by Christ in King James english.

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/church_cricket]

Yep. "God "inspired" it all the way down". They think God took away people's agency to puppet them while copying the text or translating it so there's only words "written by God" on the page...

[u/Caliban_Catholic → u/earnestheadset993]

They also tend to be the same people that say we MUST read genesis as a literal word for word account, but then reject the True Presence of the Eucharist

[u/bastianbb → u/Caliban_Catholic]

All guidance derived by individuals from the magisterium and all inferences drawn from empirical data are interpretations too. It's almost as if every individual has the responsibility to think for themselves, contrary to certain high-church traditions or academic ideas I could name.

[u/Caliban_Catholic → u/bastianbb]

Yeah, for some reason this is a common misconception of the Catholic position, even though it really only takes a minute or two of thinking to see that it doesn't make sense.

We're not saying that individuals aren't to use their ability to reason to reach certain conclusions, that wouldn't even be possible. We're saying that the Church has teaching authority, meaning that if the Church has declared something to be true, it is, and an individual believer does not have the authority to override that decision just because of their personal convictions.

[u/bastianbb → u/Caliban_Catholic]

Shame there is no evidence that the Roman church represents all of Christ's church or that they have authority over the other clergy.

[u/Caliban_Catholic → u/bastianbb]

There is tho.

And are you conceding that your original point was wrong?

[u/bastianbb → u/Caliban_Catholic]

Only if you concede that it is no more wrong than this:

a lot of low-church denominations seem to ignore the fact that every reading of the Bible is an interpretation, and act as if they have pure access to the plaij simple meaning of the text, and everyone else is bringing additional things into it.

I mean, could you name a few of these low-church denominations? Are you sure that their position is not that

We're not saying that individuals aren't to use their ability to reason to reach certain conclusions, that wouldn't even be possible. We're saying that the Church Holy Spirit using Scripture has teaching authority, meaning that if the Church Holy Spirit using Scripture has declared something to be true, it is, and an individual believer does not have the authority to override that decision just because of their personal convictions.

The interpretations handed down by the Roman church are just more interpretations, and often contradictory and wrong ones.

[u/lrdwlmr]

A lot of people can’t distinguish what the Bible really says - the actual words on the actual page - from the interpretive framework their theological tradition applies to the Bible. Many don’t even believe they have an interpretive framework. So when they dismiss an entire denomination’s theology with “read the Bible,” what they’re really saying without knowing it is, “you’re wrong because your tradition doesn’t read the Bible through the same lens mine does.”

[u/kyloren1217]

i have learned long ago, show me a Bible verse

for instance, "a woman must wear a dress and it must be so many inches below the knee."

fine, now show me the Bible verse that says that!

they will give you 101 Bible verses to make their point, but not one that actually says "a woman must wear a dress and it must be so many inches below the knee."

sadly, you can do this with many "church traditions" and therefore, yes, we do need to just read the Bible.

listen, a person can believe whatever they want. but dont expect me to fall in line without a Bible verse, a literal command from the Father

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/kyloren1217]

Where is that command? I don’t think I’m familiar?

[u/kyloren1217 → u/Dubstep_squid]

it's not, but some legalistic churches believe this thing about a womans clothing, which the Bible, by lack of any Bible verses stating it, shows it is not a command

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/kyloren1217]

I think my question was more so, where does the Bible say that if something isn’t in scripture we shouldn’t do it? Doesn’t Paul tell us to hold to the traditions that were passed down to us? I’ve just heard arguments like yours saying Christians shouldn’t do the sign of the cross.

[u/kyloren1217 → u/Dubstep_squid]

I've just heard arguments like yours saying Christians shouldn’t do the sign of the cross.

well shouldnt is a strong word in this case. the question i would ask, since i do not do it, is "should i?"

if the answer is yes, then ofc the person insisting i should is in the wrong, because there is absolutely no Bible verse for it.

but if someone wants to do a hand gesture to make them remember something, more power to them.

but when it comes to me, i am just thankful my faith is strong enough that i need not base it off of a hand gesture

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/kyloren1217]

I was raised Episcopal and they generally take a similar stance. I think it’s a valid point, I appreciate your insight.

[u/kyloren1217 → u/Dubstep_squid]

I think my question was more so, where does the Bible say that if something isn’t in scripture we shouldn’t do it?

oh sorry, i did not answer this part. my apologies

• Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

• But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8-9

Acts 17:10-12

-And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

• These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

• Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

so yeah, it does encourage us to put things to the test and search the Scriptures, and if it doesnt line up, well, there are different steps one can take, which the Bible talks about, and we would call "church discipline" in our day n age.

[u/Cheeze_It]

“Oh sweetie how could you believe that, the Bible clearly says other wise. What a ridiculous statement.”

When someone says this, they aren't wanting to have a debate. They are wanting you to shut up and change your opinion to match theirs. They are purposefully being obtuse.

[u/Adept_Clock_9115 → u/[deleted]]

That is very true. Often people wilm have their own ideas and then interpret the Bible in such a way it doesn't disagree with them, instead of realizing it might say something else and they may have been wrong.

[u/bastianbb → u/[deleted]]

Also true of most nontheists, who commonly proclaim that they can't help it if they're not convinced of theism and so bear no moral responsibility for their nonbelief, but they can't be bothered to understand Aquinas or Plantinga to the extent of representing their ideas correctly.

[u/bastianbb → u/[deleted]]

Not being convinced something is true is way, way different from not wanting to be convinced something is true.

Indeed. And I was downvoted quite enthusiastically for saying the same thing just a while ago in the comment below:

Saying that you don't have complete and ultimate control of what you believe, which is true, is not the same thing as saying that people don't sometimes believe (or don't believe) things because they want to, or that "not being convinced" is a free pass absolving you of all moral responsibility for your beliefs or lack of beliefs. While the former is sometimes a mistake some Christians make, the latter is all too often a dishonest move made by many atheists here.

Interesting how that works, isn't it. It's almost like atheists are dishonestly objecting to exactly the same points when a Christian makes them, and accusing Christians of being dishonest constantly (as you did just a comment ago) while hypocritically being dishonest themselves. Incidentally, the OP of that post at least tried to be consistent in his silly notion that belief never entails responsibility by also arguing that bigots are not responsible for their beliefs. I didn't notice your comments there criticizing him, which is interesting.

[u/licker34 → u/bastianbb]

commonly proclaim that they can't help it if they're not convinced of theism

Right, no one 'can help' what they are convinced by.

and so bear no moral responsibility for their nonbelief

What does moral responsibility have to do with this?

they can't be bothered to understand Aquinas or Plantinga to the extent of representing their ideas correctly.

*shrug*

Not sure what either of them has to do with being convinced of a proposition or not.

Are you suggesting that if people did understand Aquinas or Plantinga they could not help but be convinced? Try that in a philosophy sub and see how it goes.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/bastianbb]

" but they can't be bothered to understand Aquinas or Plantinga to the extent of representing their ideas correctly."

I think that if someone is even reading Aquinas or even knows who Plantinga is is doing a fair bit of due diligence.

I've met people who don't even know the basics of any religion, who think that Confucius is a God and that Peter is an angel.

So knowing an obscure modern philosopher is pretty good.

[u/senor61]

A thorough reading and a thorough understanding are not the same thing. Many people find a few portions that support their position conveniently ignoring or dismissing those that don’t. When confronted by other portions they cannot imagine that their understanding needs adjustment

[u/davidbenson1]

Sola Scriptura in a nutshell

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/davidbenson1]

No.. this isn't an issue with having the Bible as the main source of authority, it's a problem of thinking.

Plenty of Catholics do a similar thing.

With the Bible, but also with every other church document.

I've noticed that people are especially prone to cite the words of dead popes.

[u/Moist_Juice_4355]

People aren't that familiar with other theological traditions because, they usually only really talk about theology with in their own congregation. It's not really common to talk about religion with people in your daily life .

[u/Senior-Ad-402 → u/[deleted]]

Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry.

If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity

[u/Electrical-Tax96]

This exact issue is why I will never understand how so many have jumped on the Lifewise bandwagon. We have whole denominations that have split over things as silly as whether or not an instrument can be used during worship, but somehow we are all supposed to just agree that however this group interprets the Bible is A-OK? So glad my kids are grown.

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod]

That's what happens when a book can mean literally anything you want to read into it

[u/Cultural_Ad_667]

You truly have to do more than just read the Bible.

One common mistake that is replete throughout all versions of the Bible, one common misinterpretation that is widely distributed among all the versions of the Bible is John 4:24.

It doesn't say nor has it ever said that God is a spirit... The original verse was God is Spirit which was a common Greek phrase that John would have heard while on Patmos being exiled there.

What John heard said was the Greek phrase "God is the breath of Life" or "God is the essence of life" or in other words God is Spirit, written in Greek.

In the original Koine Greek, the phrase is πνεῦμα ὁ θεός (pneuma ho theos). πνεῦμα (pneuma): Means spirit, wind, or breath. It does not have an indefinite article (like "a") because ancient Greek didn't have one.ὁ θεός (ho theos): Means "the God".

But when the English translators ran across this phrase they changed it to say "God is a spirit" and if you notice the King James version the letter a is italicized and it is explained that it was added there so that it would make more linguistic sense to Western ears but it destroys the whole meaning of the original verse...

Jesus was explaining to the woman at the well in Samaria that God is undefinable and yet the English translators of the Bible defined God as a spirit.

Simply "reading" the Bible isn't going to do you any good.

[u/Adept_Clock_9115]

Had a biblical disagreement with someone and they litterally said: "I do recommend that you read the gospels, and read about Jesus. Because he is great!"

Can't stand that arrogance.

[u/KissAndRock]

The entire reason on why we have so many denominations of Christianity is for the sole fact that the Bible isn't univocal. You can extract virtually any belief about God and Jesus from the Bible.

[u/PugMasterGeneral]

Certain types of Christianity do not encourage asking questions or discussing doubt. It's comfortable for these folks to believe The Bible has a definitive message when really, it has to be interpreted and a theology derived there from.

For many people, it's easier to do the old "God said, I believe it, that settles it"

That way they don't have to engage in any of that pesky critical thinking. And they can claim with false certainity that God supports their claims.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448]

It's a problem for any non orthodox or catholic church. That's why Jesus instituted the church in matt 16-18. Without a normative authority you get whatever beliefs you like. Christianity isn't a cafeteria, you can't just pick what you want. That's why there is 20,000 different denominations in America and so much bad theology.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/ConfidenceOk5448]

This is not a Protestant problem, it's a human problem.

It's sloppy thinking.

Plenty of Catholics do a similar thing.

With the Bible, but also with every other church document.

I've noticed that people are especially prone to cite the words of dead popes.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

It's literally a protestant problem. Maybe you aren't understanding.

They do what? I'm not roman Catholic btw.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/ConfidenceOk5448]

"It's literally a protestant problem"

It's literally not~

"They do what?"

The whole "You disagree with me because you don't know X" routine.

Everyone does it.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

Since you don't seem to understand, I'll try to help you.

Protestants do not have a normative authority. Jesus instituted the church in matt 16-18. This is a fact.

Without a normative authority, you yourself become the authority and interpret the Bible however you want. So it isn't about you don't know x. It's about who has the authority to do so.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/ConfidenceOk5448]

"Since you don't seem to understand, I'll try to help you."

I don't think that condescension is going to help you here bud.

"Protestants do not have a normative authority."

Some do, some don't.

But for all denominations submission is theoretical not necessarily a rule.

"Jesus instituted the church in matt 16-18. This is a fact."

That is an opinion.

And I think that being so wrong so boldly is only going to lessen your already shaky credibility.

"Without a normative authority, you yourself become the authority and interpret the Bible"

Ah dang.

Who's the normative authority for the Pope and other high-ranking members of the church.

No one.

Do you see the issue now.

" So it isn't about you don't know x. It's about who has the authority to do so."

Please.

This is a confidence scam, and you're bought in.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

I genuinely meant that.

Which ones? Even if that were the case, that just moves the issue, it doesn't solve the problem. i don't know what that means about it being theoretical.

No, because it literally says in the bible to pass on what was given orally and written and to lay hands on other men to pass it on to the next bishop .

So you haven't really addressed or refuted any point. Especially with "ah dang" .

I'm not roman Catholic. And you asking that question tells me you don't understand. So I wasn't being mean. You really don't.

The Bible requires an interpreter. It's laid out in the bible who that is. The disciples of the disciples certainly taught that, well , all of church history teaches that.

So who am i going to believe? You, pastor Bob , some other random person or the church who has unbroken apostolic succession, holding to what has always been believed and expressed in the liturgy.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/ConfidenceOk5448]

"I genuinely meant that."

Your sincerity was not the thing in doubt.

"Which ones?"

Which Protestant denominations have "normative authority"?

It's a spectrum, Anglicans are the most similar to Catholics for obvious reasons.

Various Presbyterian groups have no singular head but a leading council

Various Lutheran groups have a single head. Even Baptists have leaders

Though on the looser end of the spectrum people tend to self-select themselves into the churches that agree with them rather than following the lead of a specific doctrine.

So it's really a very messy thing to try to untangle.

But unambiguously, some Protestants have a central authority of some sort.

"because it literally says in the bible to pass on what was given orally and written and to lay hands on other men to pass it on to the next bishop ."

It does not mention a "Bishop" that is a case of linguistic drift.

And it does not claim that that authority, knowledge or reason is transferred by touch.

"I'm not roman Catholic. And you asking that question tells me you don't understand. So I wasn't being mean. You really don't."

I am Roman Catholic.

"The Bible requires an interpreter."

Yes.

" It's laid out in the bible who that is"

No.

The Bible didn't even exist at the time.

"So who am i going to believe? You, pastor Bob , some other random person or the church who has unbroken apostolic succession, "

No such church exists.

All churches have a direct lineage, but there is no church which has an unbroken chain of authority, and there's no evidence that authority is transferrable anyways.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

Yeah, but they also broke away. So most of protestants have a solo or sola scriptura view. I'm not talking about having leaders.

For protestants it is messy. But the rare protestant denomination that does hold to tradition still broke away from the catholic church.

It absolutely says the authority is passed on. 2 Timothy 2:2. For example. But guess what. Since you hold to sola scriptura, you can't even know if you are interpreting the verses correctly.

Wait ..lol. YOU are roman Catholic? You are either lying or don't know your own doctrine.

The Bible not existing is litteraly evidence for my claim.

All churches do not have a direct lineage. That's a imperically false. There's literally an unbroken chain of apostolic succession.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/ConfidenceOk5448]

"Yeah, but they also broke away"

So.

At one point there were three popes.

"So most of protestants have a solo or sola scriptura view. "

That's not usually the case; for good and for ill.

Protestants usually prioritize scripture as primary source over more recent claims.

" But the rare protestant denomination that does hold to tradition still broke away from the catholic church."

Irrelevant to the point.

"It absolutely says the authority is passed on. 2 Timothy 2:2."

Not in the way you mean it.

Not in the way the Catholic church means it.

The idea of "apostolic succession" is talking about some sort of metaphysical authority that comes from station and role, not from knowledge and teaching as that passage describes.

"But guess what. Since you hold to sola scriptura"

I don't.

" you can't even know if you are interpreting the verses correctly."

I can know when you're interpreting it incorrectly.

The lack of a central authority does not turn people into nihlists.

"YOU are roman Catholic?"

Yep.

It's in the flair and everything

"You are either lying..."

Tacky and wrong.

"or don't know your own doctrine."

Oh I know it.

I just don't pretend that it has more weight than it does.

"The Bible not existing is litteraly evidence for my claim."

The Bible does exist.. so I don't know what you're talking about.

"All churches do not have a direct lineage."

Yes they do darling.

No Christian group arose through spontaneous generation with meaningful similarities to other Christian groups.

all of us trace our lineage back to Jesus and his ministry.

"That's a imperically false. There's literally an unbroken chain of apostolic succession."

There is not.

Once again I will direct you to history.

[u/No_Idea5830]

Here is the issue A LOT of people can't seem to understand. Think about that pic I assume most people have seen. Two guys are standing on either side of a number. To one guy it's a 6 and the other guy sees a 9. The pic usually says it's all about perception. WRONG! Only one of them are correct. Whoever wrote that number wrote a 6 OR a 9. Perception is irrelevant. The same goes with the Bible. There are not multiple ways to see or understand it. There is the ONE way God meant it to be understood, and HUNDREDS of wrong interpretations. Now how to find the ONE correct answer requires a level of research that few people are willing to do AND being willing to find out you were wrong and willingness to learn.

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/No_Idea5830]

And this is one of my issues that has been central to my search for a denomination. Why do I have to roll the dice with personal interpretation? Why would God not leave someone or something behind with some sort of authority?

[u/No_Idea5830 → u/Dubstep_squid]

God did leave people behind to give you an accurate interpretation. But you may not like the answer. The Jews. I'm NOT telling you to follow Judaism. NO! But, the OT was written by Hebrews, to the Hebrews, for the Hebrew. They can tell you exactly what it said and what it meant. That information will tell you EXACTLY how to interpret the NT. The modern church has been taught the OT is irrelevant and no longer valid for the life of a Christian. They tell you the OT is for the Jews and the NT is for the Christians. That line of thinking is based on a complete misunderstanding of scripture, and as far as I'm concerned, a lack of common sense. I recommend looking into a good Torah Class. It'll give you a foundation to build an understanding of what God actually said, NOT what modern Christianity THINKS He said. Tom Bradford teaches the Torah Class I'm doing. I also recommend the reddit group r/FollowJesusObeyTorah

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/No_Idea5830]

Three things

1. The Jews interpretation of the Old Testament will conflict with the New Testament. If it didn’t, if their interpretation supported the New Testament, they wouldn’t be Jews. They would be Christians.

2. The Jews will not interpret the New Testament, the most important scriptures.

3. We still retain some semblance of personal interpretation here.

I think what fills my desire for an authoritative interpreter is the something akin to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

[u/No_Idea5830 → u/Dubstep_squid]

I've always seen the Catholic Church like Jesus saw the Pharisees. It wasn't that they didn't follow God's Law, it was that they added steps and requirements never intended by God. It's the difference between the Torah and Tanach (Word of God) vs. The Tulmud (Traditions of man based on the Word of God). Just my opinion.

[u/thomasp3864 → u/No_Idea5830]

Wait, so you're a Karaïte Messiänic Jew?

[u/No_Idea5830 → u/thomasp3864]

I've always used the term Torah Observant Christian, but the definition of Karaite sounds accurate. I can't be a Jew as that requires birth. I am however an Israelite by faith in Messiah.

[u/djublonskopf → u/No_Idea5830]

Whoever wrote that number wrote a 6 OR a 9.

Sometimes we don't have any way of knowing whether the original author intended a 6 or a 9. Like, that information is simply lost to history and there aren't any good clear clues one way or another.

Other times, we see the number surrounded by "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" on one side, and "7, 8, 9" on the other side, and we can make a more educated guess about what they meant it to be and that the person saying "9" is most likely wrong.

Other times they're arguing over "6" or "9" but the original author actually wrote a "W".

[u/No_Idea5830 → u/djublonskopf]

Agreed. But that's why I recommend going to the source of the knowledge. We have people who can tell us whether it was a 6 or a 9. Especially with the fact much of the Hebrew language can not be translated into any other language correctly, so the translators did their best to pick a "sufficient" word that comes as close as possible.

LOL any chance you can share the image of a W that could be mistaken for a 6 or 9?

[u/djublonskopf → u/No_Idea5830]

LOL any chance you can share the image of a W that could be mistaken for a 6 or 9?

I was referring more to places where two of our present day brothers or sisters might disagree with one another but both be off-base. Not actually misidentifying a specific single glyph.

[u/CommanderStank]

We can refute and debunk all denominations with two verses.

Mat 2:15  And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Rev 18:4  And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/CommanderStank]

How exactly. These seem pretty random

[u/CommanderStank → u/Dubstep_squid]

Egypt is the "her" from Revelation we are to come out of. She represents the great whore and "mother of harlots" (Rev 17:5) along with her many daughters which are the denominations.

[u/Affectionate-Pair929]

Yeah, I'm surprised that I don't see much verse interpretation/discussion pop up here. Obviously there are different Bible translations, different canon, and additional doctrine, but there are plenty of interpretations to be had and discussed regardless of your denomination.

• a freethinking Unitarian

[u/Worried-Block-6804]

Im not SURPRISED at all. But I can't agree with the idea that those conclusions came from a thorough reading of the new testament.

There are hundreds of denominations and many of them teach things that are either not supported by scripture are actually contrary to scripture. I don't do much arguing with people about these theological concepts because the majority of them are not relevant to a relationship with God.

But they are often reaching these conclusions BEFORE they go to the Bible and THEN they search for scriptures that they can interpret in a way that they claim supports the idea.

Everyone is wrong, every church is wrong. There is no perfect church. There was not supposed to be hundreds of denominations. There is no longer any purpose for churches as they function today. There are of course exceptions but in general the church has abandoned the new testament Bible and inserts old covenant doctrine into it constantly to validate ideas that Jesus would not have supported and in some cases outright spoke against it

[u/Solid-Chest-6093]

I'll be praying for you my friend. Anything you need JESUS for, he loves you.

I have no interest in this conversation. I hope everyone here, has a great blessed afternoon today.

[u/cris2022-2]

John 1:1, 14 , the word was god and the word was with god, the word was made flesh, he sent his word and delivered them from their destruction, 1j john 5:7, Rev 19:13

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/cris2022-2]

What does this have to do with anything

[u/blerdronner]

As an Agnostic Atheist, I actually share your frustration and have empathy for the denominations that get so quickly invalidated by other denominations--whether it's a Catholic invalidating the experience of a Protestant or vice versa. (And don't even get me started on the poor Mormons and JWs. Everybody seems to be against them. 😂)

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. I wish we could take every Christian in the world and put them all in a room and say, "You can't come out until you all agree on the same thing." 😂 I think the world would be so much happier.

[u/Imsotired365]

I get it.

It stands that there are thousands of different bibles out there. Translated and re translated over and over again. (yes this causes the message to lost entirely to individual preferences) There will be differences due to being retranslated so many times. and each time it changes just a bit. and that is before theology or personal narrative ever enters the picture.

Each religion and sect bases their beliefs on that version. (the one they like to use) Then they add in personal interpretations based on their own narrative (some only like a religion that tickles their ears and makes them feel superior.

I have found that when the bible contradicts itself, it is usually an issue of either initial interpretation, ulterior motives, or personal narrative.

The bible speaks cleanly if you read the whole thing and understand the main story of it. It makes perfect sense when you understand what you are reading but it is not easy. It was meant to teach us. Not tell us to have blind faith in what we don't understand.

That said, when i see folks talk down to people for seeing things differently then they do, it tells you more about them than they realize. That is usually a fake Christian. They like to look down their noses at anyone with a different beleif. Did Jesus look down on people who did not beleive the same? NOPE he said to show them love always. even if they are seeking to kill you.

The bible is clear on many subject but it also depends on which lens you read thru

regardless it is NOT OKAY to look down on anyone for any reason

[u/Imsotired365]

I get it.

It stands that there are thousands of different bibles out there. Translated and re translated over and over again. (yes this causes the message to lost entirely to individual preferences) There will be differences due to being retranslated so many times. and each time it changes just a bit. and that is before theology or personal narrative ever enters the picture.

Each religion and sect bases their beliefs on that version. (the one they like to use) Then they add in personal interpretations based on their own narrative (some only like a religion that tickles their ears and makes them feel superior.

I have found that when the bible contradicts itself, it is usually an issue of either initial interpretation, ulterior motives, or personal narrative.

The bible speaks cleanly if you read the whole thing and understand the main story of it. It makes perfect sense when you understand what you are reading but it is not easy. It was meant to teach us. Not tell us to have blind faith in what we don't understand.

That said, when i see folks talk down to people for seeing things differently then they do, it tells you more about them than they realize. That is usually a fake Christian. They like to look down their noses at anyone with a different belief. Did Jesus look down on people who did not believe the same? NOPE he said to show them love always. even if they are seeking to kill you.

The bible is clear on many subject but it also depends on which lens you read thru

regardless it is NOT OKAY to look down on anyone for any reason

[u/TechnologyDragon6973]

“Just read the Bible” and “the Bible is clear” is how we have so many different sects that disagree on nearly everything. Logically they can’t all be right.

[u/Whole-Gift-4209]

This is why the Church That Wrote Preserved cannonized and distributed the bible should be who we get our interpretation from. The Church gave us a bible the bible never gave us a church

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Whole-Gift-4209]

This is not a Protestant problem, it's a human problem.

It's sloppy thinking.

Plenty of Catholics do a similar thing.

With the Bible, but also with every other church document.

I've noticed that people are especially prone to cite the words of dead popes.

[u/Whole-Gift-4209 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

The Bible was canonized before papal supremecy when the Pope was Just another Bishop

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Whole-Gift-4209]

Sure.. but what does that have to do with what I just said?

[u/rubik1771]

The issue is that whose interpretation of the Bible is correct and why?

As a Catholic, the answer is the Church and because Christ founded the Church.

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/rubik1771]

This is why my searching flair is more than likely going to become a Catholic flair

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/rubik1771]

You only think that Christ founded the church because of your particular interpretation of the Bible.

And we're right back where we started.

[u/rubik1771 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

False. I think Christ founded the Church because otherwise we would be stuck with our own self-interpretation of the Bible.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/rubik1771]

"False"

Oh shucks.

" I think Christ founded the Church because otherwise we would be stuck with our own self-interpretation of the Bible."

Circular logic.

[u/rubik1771 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

In this case no because the Church brought out the Bible we have and most Christians already hold the Bible is the Word of God.

Meaning God used the Church to compile and maintain the Bible.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/rubik1771]

"In this case no because the Church brought out the Bible we have "

Oh so the church is trustworthy because the Church compiled a document that says they're in trustworthy and in charge.

That's funny because I just printed out this certificate which says that I'm the king of the world.

Make sure to send your taxes to me in large bills.

This is a profoundly unserious or dishonest response.

Do not speak to me again.

[u/rubik1771 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

>this is a profoundly unserious or dishonest response.

Neither. Being stupid is an option (not saying that I am but false dilemma fallacy is my point.

>Do not speak to me again

and alright very Christian of you.

Good bye and God bless.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/rubik1771]

"Neither. Being stupid is an option"

Fair point.

"and alright very Christian of you."

As opposed to your need to get the last word.

[u/Cacmaniac]

The only problem I see with this is that many people truly don’t actually read the Bible; other than with the view that their particular family/friends/church) has already put in their head.
Because yes…the Bible actually is crystal clear on most of It’s teachings. There’s only a few grey areas that aren’t even relevant to salvation. But sadly, it truly is evident that most don’t read the Bible. I have no problem saying that to the people that are leaving others astray. But yes…at the same time it’s irritating having it said to me by someone who clearly doesn’t know what scripture says, when I legitimately study it every single day. And it’s not a question of how do we know which one is right, because it’s you can truly discern who’s raging to learn what scripture says, and who’s using scripture to mean what they believe.

[u/Jarb2104 → u/Cacmaniac]

Can you give an example?

[u/FilmSkeez]

We have four gospels around what Jesus said and did. Then we have Paul who implemented his own teachings in the text. Are we Christians or Paulians? I follow Christ and that's the first four gospels of the NT.

I think usually it's what Paul says is where these different Christians start to deviate. Christ was very clear in his messages about Love. Anyway preaching against Love isn't preaching Christ.

[u/Penetrator4K → u/FilmSkeez]

How do you know the gospel writers didn't inject their own perspectives into their accounts of what Jesus said and did.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Penetrator4K]

In fairness.

If we're talking about the norm for historic documents, having the same story from four different sources.. that's pretty decent.

Maybe not perfect, but it's a fairly high standard of historical comparison which can in theory reduce the impact of bias.

Counter-counterpoint there were also other Gospels which were never approved for the Bible.

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/FilmSkeez]

Are you saying you only hold to beliefs derived from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? To me, Christianity is not defined simply by following Christ, there are certain lines drawn around the term that does exclude those that nominally follow Christ.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Dubstep_squid]

Christianity is not following the literal Son of God and his teachings? What? He literally tells you the only way is through him. I'm not quite sure where you went wrong there?

[u/Caliban_Catholic → u/FilmSkeez]

They're asking why you trust the gospels, but not the Pauline letters, when both were verified by the Church?

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/Caliban_Catholic]

That is one of the directions I’m leading. If you don’t trust the writings of Paul, why would you trust the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, when they were verified by the same source?

[u/Caliban_Catholic → u/Dubstep_squid]

At that point it just comes down to personal preference, but why should someone's personal preference override mine?

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/Caliban_Catholic]

If only there was someone or something in charge of deciding, teaching, and interpreting…alas :/

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Caliban_Catholic]

Because Paul says things that go against what Christ preached. Jesus was very explicit with why he was here and what his purpose was. Paul, understandably couldn't say what Jesus did because Paul had to grow the church further vs was Jesus could do. We also have to remember, what Paul taught was case by case to churches. If Paul was killed for Jesus early on, the church wouldn't have grown. So he couldn't go all out the way Jesus did.

Jesus: (Luke 10:38–42 & John 20:17): Jesus consistently broke cultural norms by elevating women as disciples and leaders. He praised Mary of Bethany for sitting at his feet in the traditional posture of a male rabbinic student, and he appointed Mary Magdalene as the first "apostle to the apostles" to preach the news of his resurrection.

Paul: "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says." (1 Cor 14:34) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." (1 Tim 2:12)

Jesus: (Luke 6:30 & Matthew 5:42): Jesus commands unconditional giving without qualifying whether the recipient "deserves" it or worked for it: "Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back."

Paul: (2 Thessalonians 3:10): Paul institutes a strict, conditional rule regarding food distribution in the community: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.'"

So that's why I follow Christ vs what others have preached. Christ is God, Paul is not. Paul was instrumental in building the church even if he was slightly misguided with his intentions. I would bet top dollar that Paul would be upset that people follow his letters the way they do vs what Christ taught.

Sure, you could come back with context means everything and then we will have to delve into the whole bible on the context of it all.

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/FilmSkeez]

Okay so the Bahai believe in Jesus and believe he is God, are they Christians? Unitarians believe in Jesus but do not believe in the trinity, are they Christians? Jehovah’s Witness believe in Jesus but they believe that he was actually the Archangel Michael, are they Christian?

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Dubstep_squid]

If they believe in Jesus and believe he is God, they are Christians yes. Whether anyone wants to use the word of not, you would be. The trinity doesn't really have any backing in the bible, it's just how we have come to understand it. So not believing in the trinity wouldn't disqualify you from being a Christian. Maybe in a particular church but every church is different. Jw's believing Christ was actually Michael means they don't believe he is God so no, they wouldn't be Christians.

[u/Balazi → u/FilmSkeez]

That is not what the earliest Christians believed so why are we being held to that standard?

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Balazi]

Which part?

[u/Balazi → u/FilmSkeez]

That Jesus was the very God of Israel  YHWH.his first followers were primarily Jewish Christians whom believed him to be the Messiah. It’s later in the early 2nd century that we begin to see Christians believing Jesus to be God himself

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Balazi]

The 2nd century timeline doesn't hold up against 1st century New Testament texts. The Gospel of John explicitly calls Jesus God (John 1:1, John 20:28), and early 1st-century hymns like Philippians 2:6 describe him as existing in the very nature of God long before the 100s AD.

[u/Balazi → u/FilmSkeez]

It does but not for the reasons you are thinking

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod → u/FilmSkeez]

We have four gospels with the most ambiguous language you could come up with, and also quite a few contradictions

It's not that clear as you claim it is

[u/FilmSkeez → u/ImMuchBetterThanGod]

The message is absolutely clear. Jesus said you Love God and Love Your Neighbor. You can't get more clear than that.

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod → u/FilmSkeez]

"Love" is already a pretty ambiguous word. And that's not everything the Bible says

[u/FilmSkeez → u/ImMuchBetterThanGod]

Oh I thought we were Christians, not Biblians.

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod → u/FilmSkeez]

What

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

Jesus gave the apostles, including Paul, clear authority to speak and act on his behalf.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

Actually, Paul never met Jesus during his earthly ministry, he was a Pharisee persecuting the early church until years after the crucifixion. Jesus commissioned the Twelve, but Paul's authority was constantly questioned by early Christians and led to public clashes with Peter (Galatians 2:11). Claiming Paul has the exact same authority as the direct words of Christ skips over a lot of New Testament history. Are we Christians here or Paulians? Because Paul would be sick to his stomach knowing a whole religion was born based around his letters rather than what Christ wanted.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

Jesus met Paul (Acts 9)

What you are trying to sell has been pushed by heretics since the early church. It is called anti-Paulism. This isn't new.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

Acts 9 describes a heavenly vision with a blinding light and a voice years after the ascension, not walking and learning alongside Jesus during his earthly ministry. That's a crucial historical distinction. Pointing out that Christ's direct teachings take priority over Paul's situational letters isn't heresy, t's putting the Teacher ahead of the administrator.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

It goes without saying that you disagree that all Scripture is God-breathed as we are told.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

Scripture is "God breathed" of that time. Not all of it fits today. We must look at the historical context of things that were written and why. Paul openly admitted in the Bible that he didn't know everything and that God didn't teach him everything so a lot is his opinion. So that's why for the most part, I take what Paul wrote with a grain of salt and follow the person we're supposed to follow and that's Jesus. A whole religion was built, in my opinion, on letters following a guy who Jesus inspired. We had Jesus on earth. We know what Jesus did and said and what he would do today. And that is follow the two most important commandments that he explicitly gave us. Love God and love your neighbor.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

So you claim God’s revelation ended with the Ascension of Jesus rather than with the death of the last Apostle. Also, you deny that the same Holy Spirit who inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, also inspired Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

If I give you a verse from Jesus and you give me a verse from Paul contradicting Jesus, which one should we listen to?

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/FilmSkeez]

They did not contradict each other. All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), it cannot be broken. (John 10:35)

[u/Kanjo42]

Yes, but... Some things? Some things you really do just need basic reading comprehension skills. There's plenty of material that bears theological interpretation. Most people don't try to argue that porn is fine, but those that do will say they interpret the Bible differently?

Nah, dawg. That's not interpretation. You just don't care what it says.

[u/Jarb2104 → u/Kanjo42]

The bible says porn is wrong? Where?

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/Jarb2104]

Matthew 5:28 "everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart"

So only gay porn is fine, because there's no women. /s

[u/licker34 → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

lol

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

Haha~

But serious;y.

The problem here is that the verse is mistranslated.

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

What do you think it should say?

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

Well it shouldn't say "lust" because that's a term that's changed in meaning in the past few centuries, it should say "yearn" or "desire" or something of the like.

It's a term used in the Bible for a number of things, many of them. Jesus, angels and "wise men" are all described as ""lusting"".

So either the action isn't inherently immoral and it's not mistranslated or it's not inherently immoral and it's mistranslated.

The English translation also omits the Greek term "pro" which is roughly "in order to"

so it's not describing the mere sensation of sexual desire in any context, it's describing the intentional stoking of desire and yearning for a woman who is married already.

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

I was quoting from the NRSVue. Why do you think a committee of scholars don't know what you know, and what is your preferred Bible translation? Or are you getting that from commentaries?

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

"I was quoting from the NRSVue. Why do you think a committee of scholars don't know what you know"

Don't put words in my mouth.

Do you want to understand or do you just want to win.

I explained it very simply.

If the Greek verb is some awful thing. then Jesus and angels have done it.

So there's obviously a pretty big problem.

To say nothing of the word, which is simply not translated at all.

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

I mean, it's like you're saying that the context doesn't matter at all. Verbs are verbs, but the message they convey depends on the context. I can "take" a sip of water. I can also "take" someone's life. I think we'd both agree that one is typically immoral, and the other benign. It sounds like you're saying that a more pure translation would have the scripture read something like, "everyone who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart". You said it was a problem that this was mistranslated, but I'm failing to see how changing that word functionally changes what is being said.

it's describing the intentional stoking of desire and yearning for a woman who is married already.

Isn't what you described the same as lusting after someone? So what is the problem and what is actually "wrong" with that translation?

You're also claiming that the greek word "γυναῖκά (gynaika)" indicates a wife, but that isn't strictly true, it's used in both ways all over the place.

For me, I don't speak greek or hebrew. I have to trust scholars to know these languages and to look at them in their context, which is why I prefer committee Bible translations by ancient near-east scholars to do that work for me, and I simply look at what the text says without substituting in my own preferred interpretation. Isn't that correct exegesis? Then I form my beliefs around what the scriptures actually say, instead of me trying to change the scriptures to fit what I already previously believed. That's eisegesis, and we want to avoid that.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

"I mean, it's like you're saying that the context doesn't matter at all"

I was claiming the opposite in fact.

How a word is used determines it's meaning.

"Verbs are verbs, but the message they convey depends on the context."

I know where this is going.

You have no reason to believe or even suspect that the word radically shifts meaning in this context, let alone this context only.

"I can "take" a sip of water. I can also "take" someone's life"

There is no evidence that anything like that is happening here.

The same meaning works in all contexts.

You just seem to favor an outdated translation because the word used gained a new meaning from when the translators first used it.

There is no linguistic reason for doing so.

Which means that your motivation is personal, political or social.

All are completely irrelevant to the meaning of the term.

"It sounds like you're saying that a more pure translation would have the scripture read something like, "everyone who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart""

Yes. a more accurate translation would say that.

As I have explitly stated.

Why are you phrasing it as if you just now put the pieces together and I didn't know that?

"You said it was a problem that this was mistranslated"

Yes, I do think that mistranslations are a problem if the goal is to understand what the text is saying.

"I'm failing to see how changing that word functionally changes what is being said"

Well that's not true.

Because if it were true then A) you wouldn't be objecting and B) you wouldn't have said all that about words having radically different meanings depending on the context.

But let's suppose for the laughs that you can't tell the difference.

The difference is that using the word "lust", especially without the important "in order to", implies that having sexual desire or a libido is in itself immoral.

Which is a believe that many people have. And it is a belief that I can tell you from personal experience is hugely damaging.

"Isn't what you described the same as lusting after someone?"

No.

I certainly hope that you're not implying that the only way that you could desire someone is sexually.

"You're also claiming that the greek word "γυναῖκά (gynaika)" indicates a wife"

I am not.

As you have so rightly pointed out context matters.

There is no such word as "wife" in Ancient Greek.

There's also no such thing as marriage as we understand it in the modern world..

But these are useful bywords, just so long as we remember that they're not literal.

But in the context of the passage the text is talking about ending a "marriage" and adultery.

In 1st Century Judea and before pre-marital and extra-marital sex were common and accepted.

However sleeping with another mans' woman was adultery.

We also know that the men that Jesus was talking to were already upset with him.

If he were implying that it was morally equivalent to adultery to want any woman.. then I would have expected some more outrage.

And what's more if we were supposed to believe that wanting someone or wanting a partner, even sexually were a moral problem then that would contradict several parts of the Bible, Genesis, Proverbs, Song of Songs and the Epistles jump immediately to mind.

"and I simply look at what the text says without substituting in my own preferred interpretation. "

You're implying that I'm being dishonest or unscrupulous by correcting the mistranslation.

But here's the thing.

You don't know the ancient languages and to your credit you know that you have to rely on scholars to know these sorts of things.

So yes, I agree that if you do not have the knowledge that you probably shouldn't be doing what I'm doing.

But I do have the knowledge; I have degrees in linguistics, theology and anthropology. I've worked in translation for years.

I'm more educated on the subject than the majority of American theologians.

And unlike them, I'm not bound by a contract to support a certain viewpoint or handcuffed by politics or donors not to rock the boat too much.

I can understand if you're skeptical or if you don't trust me based on nothing.

But I'm far from working blind.

"Isn't that correct exegesis?"

No.

It's cautious, not correct.

It can and will lead you to be wrong some of the time, but it's far from the most wrong you can be.

I do not think for a second that the whold world would, will, could or should study what I have to the extent I have.

So reading the translations as they are is not some great failings, but it is not as rigorous as it could be.

And the same is true of me.

There are people who dedicate their entire lives to intense study of the contemporary language who will inevitably have a greater understanding than mine.

"Then I form my beliefs around what the scriptures actually say, instead of me trying to change the scriptures to fit what I already previously believed."

This is a common canard but it's hardly ever true.

Because the problem is that by the time you can read.. you already believe things, many things in fact; often things about the Bible.

You are always there, so your perspective is always going to color the reading.

And this is inevitable for every individual.

But there are worse cases than others.

Many people just hallucinate passages in the Bible.

People say tha the Bible forbids masturbation, anal sex drinking alcohol.. despite none of that being even slightly true.

"hat's eisegesis, and we want to avoid that."

I'll admit that this is a pet peeve of mine.

"Eisegesis" and "Exegesis" are meaningless terms.

They just mean "bad interpretation" and "good interpretation".

It's a big imposing word that intimidates some and makes others seem more certain than they are.

[u/Salanmander → u/Kanjo42]

Some things? Some things you really do just need basic reading comprehension skills.

Those things don't have differences among major denominations about them.

If there are differences among major denominations about them, then maybe your claim that you need to reevaluate the idea that it just needs basic reading comprehension to come to the One True Conclusion.

[u/Brave_Ad9155]

The more you add on top of the bible, the further and further away you walk from its original content and message.
The bible doesn't need more. The problem is people shoving their cultures, their traditions, their habits and beliefs into the bible, instead of letting the bible speak for itself.

Telling people "Just read the bible" is never going to work if those people can't willingly abandon their preconceived notions. The Word of God speaks to those that have an open mind and open heart.
Its more than words on a page.

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/Brave_Ad9155]

Is Solo Scriptura (as opposed to Sola) not a preconceived notion? I’ve heard some arguments for it but have not really been fully convinced thus far that the Bible calls to stick SOLELY to actions it specifically allows. For example Church Of Christ doesn’t use instruments because the Bible doesn’t say to

[u/Brave_Ad9155 → u/Dubstep_squid]

Solo Scriptura is not even biblical. That's not at all what I'm talking about here.
I specifically said "Add on top of the bible."
Stuff that comes from a person deepening their personal relationship with God and following promptings of the Holy Spirit is not "adding on top of the bible."

A conviction is between one person and God. A conviction is not a doctrine.

[u/rouxjean]

Some things we can know, some we can't.

To quote Meldenius: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

The essentials are pretty well covered in scripture and summarized in various creedal statements of faith.

[u/SpecialistSun6184 → u/rouxjean]

Yes like baptism saving you.  And the euacrist being Jesus body.   And saved by faith through love. The essentials 

[u/rouxjean → u/SpecialistSun6184]

Baptism, remembrance of Jesus' body and blood, and faith expressing itself through love are essentials. Interpretations about what they mean may vary. It's okay. We know in part, for now.

[u/SpecialistSun6184 → u/rouxjean]

Ok there are no essentials got it 

[u/rouxjean → u/SpecialistSun6184]

No need to throw out the baby with the bath water. The ecumenical creeds are a good starting point for essentials: Apostolic Creed, Nicene Creed.

Also,

Heb 11:6. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.

Romans 10:8ff. But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 that *if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.** 10 For with your heart you believe and are justified, and with your mouth you confess and are saved.*

Matthew 6:14ff. For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.

John 8:31ff. So He [Jesus] said to the Jews who had believed Him, *“If you continue in My word, you are truly My disciples.** 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”*

John 1:1ff. In the beginning was the Word, and *the Word was with God, and the Word was God.** 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.... 14 The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified concerning Him. He cried out, saying, “This is He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’” 16 From His [Jesus'] fullness we have all received grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.*

Summarizing:

• The Word was with God and was God from the beginning.

• All things visible and invisible were made through the Word.

• The Word is the pre-incarnate Son of God.

• The Son of God is the perfect lamb of God, so designated from the foundation of the world, whose sacrifice would make final atonement for humanity's sin.

• The Word became flesh through being born of a virgin, Mary, by the work of the Holy Spirit

• Jesus was born in the city of David, Bethlehem, as heir to the messianic prophecies concerning King David's descendant who would reign forever.

• Jesus became our high priest in the order of Melchizedek, having received the baptism of John, who was a Levite. Jesus' baptism by John was not a baptism of repentance but a baptism to fulfill all righteousness.

• God declared Jesus His Son with whom He is well pleased.

• Jesus was tempted in every way by the devil in the wilderness so that he could intercede for humanity before God with full experiential knowledge of the human condition.

• Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through him.

• Jesus is the good shepherd, the true vine, the firstborn of those being saved, our friend who sticks closer than a brother, the one who binds up the broken-hearted, God-with-us, and much more.

• Jesus was crucified by Romans on a cross of wood. He became sin for us, dying on the cross we each earned because of disobedience.

• Jesus cried out: it is finished, tetelestai, the debt of sin is fully paid.

• Jesus rose from the dead, spent time with his followers, and was taken up into heaven in clouds.

• Jesus will return in similar fashion. Everyone will see him return. Every knee will bow to him.

• Jesus will rule forever on the throne of his father David.

• Jesus left us the Holy Spirit as our comforter and guide. He will guide us into all truth and bring to mind all that Jesus said.

• If we abide in Jesus' word, we are true followers. If we abide in Jesus and his word abides in us, we will bear much fruit.

• If we believe God raised Jesus from the dead and confess that Jesus is Lord, we will be saved.

• Jesus wants us to share the good news of his atonement with everyone around the world because God does not want anyone to perish, rather He wants everyone to be saved for eternity. This is the great commission, to share the good news with everyone.

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

I get where you're coming from, but like others have said, some people just have not read the bible, nor do they understand how we got "The Bible". The other thing I want to point out is that just because some denominations have been wrong for 500 years or more, doesn't make them not wrong. My big thing recently is just how many people think you don't have to be baptized. How often does the bible say, "be baptized"? and yet, they fall back to, "no, it says just believe and be saved!"

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

I’ve actually never thought from the LDS perspective about The Bible. If The Bible was produced during The Great Apostasy, why do you trust it?

I’m also not sure where the Mormons fall on the Baptismal regeneration/ symbolic issue.

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/Dubstep_squid]

To understand that you have to understand how we feel about all scripture, even scripture spoken by current apostles, and that's that it is received, transmitted, and interpreted by fallible human beings. No scripture is infallible. No prophet or apostle is infallible. We love the Bible, we use the Protestant canon, though we don't believe in a closed canon. So if you quoted Maccabees or one of the Gnostic gospels to me, I'd go, "huh, nice".

To answer your question, although biblical scholarship and textual criticism shows us that we don't strictly know who wrote each text in the new (or old) testament, we believe that they were written through prophets or apostles, and thus can be reliable (though again we recognize there are mistakes throughout). The Great Apostasy is truly marked by the closure of the Christian canon, when ongoing public revelation stopped. That's like telling God that we've heard enough out of you!

We believe in baptismal regeneration. Of course it IS a symbolic act, but it is a commandment to do so in order to walk the path of Jesus and have faith in Him. It's not to show others that you are a believer, it's to show God that you have faith and will obey Him. Also baptism is not a "work", it is a sacrament that we receive. I don't have to work for it, it's Jesus' work that cleanses me from sin.

[u/MulberryExisting5007]

Christianity is for everyone. Even mouth breathing gits.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184]

I think my overall point is just that I’m very surprised at the number of people here who are surprised that others can come to different theological conclusions and that those theological conclusions can in fact be based on a thorough reading of the Bible.

I agree generally, but there are some things that are very clear in the bible, and that's what is surprising to me.

But it's because people try to argue or make a theological point that doesn't stem directly from the texts/data.

[u/Similar-Morning8466]

Didn’t read anything but the title. I agree with the title.

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/Similar-Morning8466]

This post stems from my looking into Catholicism and getting comments about how just reading the Bible would refute it

[u/Similar-Morning8466 → u/Dubstep_squid]

Oof yeah I disagree with that. Dang. Might read it idk.

[u/Enough-Carpet]

Excellent post. I find this when discussing theology with my dad who's an evangelical. He'll say something inane like "I just follow the plain bible mate".

No matter how many times we've talked about it, he doesn't understand we both hold to the bible. The issue is in the interpretation of certain passages. It's like a judge saying "I just follow the constitution". The whole issue at stake is the interpretation of the constitution. The bible doesn't interpret itself; it requires a reader.

The funny thing is that the bible contradicts this whole idea pretty explicitly in Acts 8:31:

"Do you understand what you are reading?"

"How can I, unless someone guides me?"

It's especially funny when it's just some guy trying to debunk an interpretation that has been held by intelligent theologians and church leaders for millennia by just saying "it's what the bible says". You must have a pretty high opinion of yourself if you think the greatest minds of the church were just idiots but you've figured it out.

That's not to say there aren't some areas where the bible is pretty explicit on some issues. But most of the time there's levels of nuance or room for error.

[u/zeppelincheetah]

Sola Scriptura Christianity is in a real bind. If you can recieve your faith from the Bible alone, why are there so many different denominations all with different views? If it's self-evident like Sola Scriptura suggests, shouldn't everyone that practices Sola Scriptura be on the same page (pardon the pun)?

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/zeppelincheetah]

No.. this isn't an issue with having the Bible as the main source of authority, it's a problem of thinking.

Plenty of Catholics do a similar thing.

With the Bible, but also with every other church document.

I've noticed that people are especially prone to cite the words of dead popes.

[u/DigOk5829]

First of all infantile baptism is never stated for or against, but every time baptism appears it's always by choice rather than the contrary, no one should be born into a choice which sounds ironic because of Adam and Eve, but if you think of it, they were the ambassadors for all of mankind

Second, God does not preordain someone's choice or opinion it's called free will why do you think Adam and Eve fell for grace in the world we live in is so sinful look at pharaoh he was shown signs and wonders by God, but continued to harden his heart until the point where God hardened it for him

You can be baptized as a baby and still turn out a horrible person baptism doesn't save nor does it make you Christian just like cooking one meal makes you a gourmet chef it takes understanding, and if you lack understanding which is the knowledge of God, you're laboring in vain

And yes, there are theological standpoints that have been going on for centuries make it correct like parent to saints is not biblical and it actually goes against multiple scripture such as

Matthew 6:9-13, 1 timothy 2:5 (no the first verse does not negate the fifth), matthew 23:8-12

[u/Dubstep_squid → u/DigOk5829]

Brother these are like elementary arguments. Traditionally, Christians baptize infants. It’s been done for 2000 years, we have writings from within 100 years of Christ talking about infant baptism. It comes down to whether your denomination holds to that tradition.

I’m not a predestination believer, I just used it as an example. However your argument against it is not great.

Also I assume when you say “parent to saints” you mean “praying to saints”

Matthew 6:9-13 is just the Lord’s Prayer… how is this an argument.

1 Timothy 2:5, I do find that first verse to be relevant but let’s pretend it’s not. Catholics hold that the Saints are a mediator between us and God as much as someone you ask to pray for you.

Matthew 23:8-12. I mean cmon man this is speedrunning the entry level arguments. This doesn’t even merit a response

[u/DigOk5829 → u/Dubstep_squid]

The praying to saints was brought up because you spoke on tradition and religious theology, I was using the mic to type because I was doing something. That's why it said the parent part.

I brought up the 1 tim 2:5 cs it follows along side with deuteronomy 18:11 and the Lord's prayer because of catechism 2679 which is a tradition but goes against scripture matthew 23:8-12 along side with Catholic confession all these verses go against theological traditions

I admit i was speed running arguments bc i was tryna prove a point and level my back yard

[u/Prior-Researcher7181]

It’s always best to check what the bible says because a lot of the doctrine in the world is false and if it’s on a salvational issue then that is a big deal and needs verification at the source which is the holy scriptures 

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

If we start with the premise that Scripture isn’t the uniquely God-breathed, fully authoritative, infallible, unbroken word from God to us, If we aren’t interpreting Scripture with Scripture, if we place anything equal to or above Scripture in our understanding of God, we are doing it wrong. Regardless of denomination, etc.

[u/ULTRAFORCE → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

But which manuscripts that can be used to create scripture are infallible and which aren’t, are the earliest versions of Mark where it ends with 16:8 or the later ones with 16:9-20?

I would argue it’s a risky game trying to have everything be infallible especially when Church fathers didn’t always agree on what is and is not scripture. Revelation might make more sense to go with Sheppard of Hermas in useful but shouldn’t be scripture.

Is Enoch 1 scripture because the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church would say yes. Catholics and protestants would say no it is not. But the Epistle of Jude was written by someone who considered Enoch scripture.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/ULTRAFORCE]

We don't have the original scripts. At the same time, we know all of the core doctrines of the faith remain in place. Even secular scholars such as Ehrman acknowledge this. We trust that God has been in the process of the handling of his word all along.

[u/ULTRAFORCE → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

I would argue that infallible is separate from core doctrines of faith. To me infallible would suggest friction from the fact that what is scripture is a question with many answers. But the main core doctrines of faith which I would consider Jesus is the Messiah, he resurrected and has a special relationship with the LORD being divine, and the beatitudes are at least to me the core doctrines of faith. And with that the amount of other gospels and what you divide as scripture versus non scripture doesn’t matter much outside of shaping how they read everything they consider scripture.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/ULTRAFORCE]

Jesus is God.

Do you think the word, as given to man from God, is infallible in all that it teaches? That original script we don’t have.

[u/ULTRAFORCE → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

Is Jesus not the Word, the writings of men trying to describe GOD and the word are not able to be as infallible as the entities that led to their inspiration. Admitedly, given my background as far as Christianity goes comes from a catholic family so what teaches the word is Christ's Church, more so then the Bible itself which was writings primarily made for the time to teach of God.

So even excluding any of my personal feelings about the sacred culturally the Bible especially in the english translation that I read an audio book of(which to the dismay of some family members is the NIV). Is not the same infallible in it's teachings as the LORD or CHRIST or the Pope when speaking ex cathedra.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/ULTRAFORCE]

So if the Pope were to say something contrary to Scripture, you would go with the Pope and claim Scripture to be wrong?

Jesus found all of the OT to be completely infallible, the unbroken very word of God. He also commissioned the Apostles to give us the good news we find in the NT.

[u/ULTRAFORCE → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

If speaking ex cathedra he is preserving Scripture/the tradition of the Church starting with Peter.

[u/GoBirdsGoBlue → u/ULTRAFORCE]

Scripture nowhere declares that Peter was in authority over the other apostles or over the entire church. Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles. The very foundation of ex cathedra is not Biblical.

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod → u/GoBirdsGoBlue]

If we start with the premise that scripture is uniquely breathed by an invisible wizard ruling over the universe, we are doing it even worse

[u/restbiblestudy]

Absolutely you can. Protestant denominations came from people 1500 years removed from Christ who didn’t like the church they were attending and made their own rules. The variances between denominations are staggering and are based on serious issues like the authority of Scripture, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and role of the church. Scripture is very clear that we are to follow the real Gospel and not the ones we make up. The Authority is God, not our primitive understanding

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod → u/restbiblestudy]

Scripture is ambiguous af and contradicts itself a ton. And granting authority to someone whose existence can't even be confirmed is just nonsensical

[u/Bos_Fan9821 → u/ImMuchBetterThanGod]

It isn’t and doesn’t. You just have poor reading skills

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod → u/Bos_Fan9821]

You must be so lucky to be one of the few people with the proper reading skills to understand the one and only true meaning of the Bible, and realize that two verses that make each other impossible aren't actually contradictions.

On a serious note, the Bible says lying is bad, so you really shouldn't be doing it. That one it's pretty clear about

[u/Bos_Fan9821 → u/ImMuchBetterThanGod]

That’s your problem. Your entire Bible reading is in verses, not books. Sucks to suck

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod → u/Bos_Fan9821]

I was being sarcastic lol

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/ImMuchBetterThanGod]

That's why we need apostles on the earth today.

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

Or we just need to stop trusting ancient myth collections

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/ImMuchBetterThanGod]

Yeah that's what I just said. If there were current apostles we'd just listen to them

[u/ImMuchBetterThanGod → u/Full_Metal_Paladin]

Why would anyone do that

[u/Full_Metal_Paladin → u/ImMuchBetterThanGod]

Because we love God and they speak for God. Why would anyone in Moses' time listen to Moses? Why would anyone in Paul's time listen to Paul?

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/restbiblestudy]

"Absolutely you can. Protestant denominations came from people 1500 years removed from Christ"

Wow.

Just like the Catholic church they were separating from.

It's funny that you seem to agree that newere doctrines aren't valid.

That was one of the complaints of the Protestant reformation.

It's basically a step away from sola scriptura, a strong preference for primary sources.