Interpreting the scripture

[Peds nurse]

Hello people!!

I have talked with a couple of non believers who are somewhat disturbed when Christians claim to interpret or have more insight to scripture than they do. I am wondering why this is an issue? If we read multiple books on electric conductivity of the brain, and how various diseases interfere with that process, would we claim to know as much as a neurologist?

I don't think that Christians are claiming that nonbelievers are incompetent in any way, or that they lack the skills to interpret scripture, rather I believe it is because we as Christians, have God living in us (His Spirit), giving us discernment in how to apply and live out those scriptures in our life (New Testament).

Question for debate: Do you think it is reasonable to think that Christians have an advantage over nonbelievers in interpreting scripture? Why do some find this claim offensive?

HAPPY 4TH of JULY!!!

[Ancient Paths]

Peds nurse,

I think most Christians have made the same mistake that most atheists make, which is finding a set of ideas that are palatable to them and then settling in and getting comfortable. Another sad truth is that most Christians are more than willing to compromise with the world and allow the world to dictate their schedules, leaving little to no time (or interest) in digging beneath the surface of their chosen group.

Having said that, I think non-Christians are justified in pointing out the differences between the beliefs of individual believers. Those differences must necessarily appear to be pretty strong evidence that Christianity is hokum and believers delude themselves into believing they have some stake or investment in remaining unmoved.

What I have found, however, is that different people are willing to progress in God to different depths before they get comfortable and stop, usually in a denominational rut, focusing instead on the cares of this life and church activities. Some never stop seeking and are willing to be found wrong because they get that this means greater understanding. I never lose a debate, even if I'm wrong, because I always gain something. I've noticed that, of those who continue to seek more of God, God will have them focus on different areas of their lives or different scripture passages or different doctrines because we are all individuals and need different things at different times. I'm okay with that, and I see this as a good reason to come together: we need one another.

Peace.

[tam]

In response to the OP:

Do you think it is reasonable to think that Christians have an advantage over nonbelievers in interpreting scripture? Why do some find this claim offensive?

Technically, no... because interpretation does not belong to men, so it should not BE a Christian interpreting scripture.

A Christian should have an advantage over a non-believer in understanding scripture IF that Christian has had that scripture opened to them by the Spirit (Christ)... therefore IF that Christian is listening to the Spirit, and IF the Christian knows Christ. (Well, a Christian knows Christ - they are anointed with holy spirit that Christ has given them - but not all who call themselves Christians truly are Christians)

Danmark said: Several problems with this.
One is that many non Christians are former Christians, who diligently studied the Bible and even went to Seminary or were practicing ministers who had been 'born again' and 'filled with the spirit.'

The frequent and I believe grossly unfair response is "Well! Then you never were a 'true' Christian." If find that offensive and perhaps even a rule violation.

I am not and would not use that response. One can have been a true Christian, and then lost or denied, etc, their faith in Christ.

Danmark said: Next, I think we've all met people who were faithful Christians who really did not know their Bibles very well or who have come up with very odd ideas, then claim the spirit had showed them the way.

The claim is what I am talking about. I personally do not go around stating if people are true or false Christians. I can question it (even if just to myself) if they are speaking/teaching contrary to Christ.

But I can test the message or interpretation that they are giving against Him to see if that is true.

Danmark said We also have actually put this to the test. No one here has shown they can interpret and understand scripture better than anyone else based on their statement of faith.

Okay. I don't think I am stating something different so perhaps we are just crossing signals.

No one (believer or non-believer) should believe someone else's interpretation of something just because they CLAIM to be a Christian, or just because they CLAIM to have learned it from the Spirit (Christ).

People should test (for me, Christ is the test of truth, since He IS the Truth) the 'interpretation' themselves.

Essentially there is a fallacy going on here. I'll give an example:

"You can't possibly know as much about Ireland because you were not born there."

"I've actually been to Japan so I know . . . . better than you do."

I met a lady last night. She came from Ireland, she said. She used "Gobsmacked." I said that's a great British word. "No," she corrected. "It's Irish." [she's wrong. look it up] Then I asked her what County in Ireland she was from. She said she was from Dublin, but they only call it a city, not a county. [wrong again]

The reason non believers are offended by this baloney about only Christians can say what the Bible means is because, A, it's not true,
and
B, it's an illogical way to claim some kind of undeserved special status as an "authority." "I'm right because I'm an authority" is a basic fallacy of logic.

[/quote]

From A - I did not say that only Christians can say what the bible means. I think the OP asked if Christians have an ADVANTAGE. If they are Christian and listening to the Spirit, then yes, they do have an advantage over those who are NOT listening to the Spirit.


From B - I never stated that. I think if you re-read (or perhaps I was unclear, for which I apologize) the last paragraph of my post, I state that the claim itself means nothing. SHOW that your 'interpretation' or understanding is true, then your claim might mean something to someone else regarding who gave you that understanding.

If your interpretation is shown to be false (by a believer or non-believer) then you (the Christian making the claim) might have to concede that you were mistaken (and either did not understand what the Spirit told you or it was your own personal interpretation), and that an atheist had a better understanding, at least of the scripture under discussion.



Basically, the claim (that one learned this interpretation from the spirit) matters -so as to give glory and credit to the One who taught you. (rather than taking credit and glory for yourself) But the claim does not mean that someone else should take your word for it, especially if your interpretation has been shown to be in conflict with Christ.


I hope that clears some of that up!

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

From Post 48:

A Christian should have an advantage over a non-believer in understanding scripture IF that Christian has had that scripture opened to them by the Spirit (Christ)... therefore IF that Christian is listening to the Spirit, and IF the Christian knows Christ. (Well, a Christian knows Christ - they are anointed with holy spirit that Christ has given them - but not all who call themselves Christians truly are Christians)

"A Christian ain't a Christian, unless it is, he's my kinda Christian, otherwise, he's just a Scotsman."

No, not at all.

Making the statement that some who call themselves Christian are not... is simply following what Christ has also taught.

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'


Anyone can call themselves a Christian. That doesn't mean that it is true. That is just a statement of fact. Not a judgment against anyone in particular, just because they aren't 'my kinda' Christians.


And if one is at least going by what is written... Christ said there would be false christs who come... and what can the followers of a false christ be other than false christians?



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy[/i][/b]

[Danmark]

From A - I did not say that only Christians can say what the bible means. I think the OP asked if Christians have an ADVANTAGE. If they are Christian and listening to the Spirit, then yes, they do have an advantage over those who are NOT listening to the Spirit.


From B - I never stated that. I think if you re-read (or perhaps I was unclear, for which I apologize) the last paragraph of my post, I state that the claim itself means nothing. SHOW that your 'interpretation' or understanding is true, then your claim might mean something to someone else regarding who gave you that understanding.

If your interpretation is shown to be false (by a believer or non-believer) then you (the Christian making the claim) might have to concede that you were mistaken (and either did not understand what the Spirit told you or it was your own personal interpretation), and that an atheist had a better understanding, at least of the scripture under discussion.



Basically, the claim (that one learned this interpretation from the spirit) matters -so as to give glory and credit to the One who taught you. (rather than taking credit and glory for yourself) But the claim does not mean that someone else should take your word for it, especially if your interpretation has been shown to be in conflict with Christ.

Thank you. One of the concerns we have is that everyone has biases. A non Christian may have a bias to disbelieve in the authenticity of a passage. He may too quickly conclude a story is too fantastic to consider or even fully investigate. A Christian may have the opposite bias.

If there is a contradiction within a passage or between passages, our biases will effect how we interpret that. So I don't see any inherent advantage for either group.

The problem with the thesis that the spirit will open a window on the truth of scripture is that it already makes some presumptions about the very 'scripture' in question. The claim that God directly inspired those scriptures; that is, that he himself breathed in the words thru the minds and hands of the authors, is also based on a huge presumption, and one on which sincere Christians have differing views.

[Zzyzx]

.

Anyone can call themselves a Christian. That doesn't mean that it is true.

Agreed. Thus, when you call yourself a Christian that may not be true. Correct?

Perhaps you (generic term) are following false teachings and/or are "interpreting" the Bible incorrectly. No matter how fervently you may believe you are right, there is no assurance that is true.

Maybe you (generic term) got lucky and picked the right Christian beliefs from the 40,000 or so available. Maybe not.

That is just a statement of fact. Not a judgment against anyone in particular, just because they aren't 'my kinda' Christians.

What individual or organization is empowered / authorized to make such decisions?

If such decisions are NOT made by man but by God, NO PERSON has the ability to judge. What you (generic term) believe is "authentic Christianity" may indeed be false.

There were many branchings in "Christianity" – first borrowing from Judaism, then fracturing, then some unification under Roman emperors to produce Roman Catholicism, then splintering of Protestantism, which in turn splintered into thousands of branches.

Each sect seems to think it has "the one true path to salvation" and the correct "interpretation of scripture."

And if one is at least going by what is written... Christ said there would be false christs who come... and what can the followers of a false christ be other than false christians?

How, exactly, are "false Christs" identified (except by personal opinion)?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 53:

Making the statement that some who call themselves Christian are not... is simply following what Christ has also taught.

Which gets us right back to how can we tell if this collection of stories and such is an accurate reflection of what he taught. We're expected to rely on these tales as evidence these tales are accurate, and how it is, this "spirit" is s'posed to guide us, only it is, folks've been claiming to have such a "spirit", and they still disagree.

I propose that instead of attempting to show who is and who ain't a Christian, you'd do better to show these various religious assertions are an accurate reflection of reality.


Show us this "spirit" guides folks to some superior understanding of biblical texts. Extra bonus points if ya can do it without referencing the very book making the claims.

[tam]

.

Anyone can call themselves a Christian. That doesn't mean that it is true.

ZZzyx said: Agreed. Thus, when you call yourself a Christian that may not be true. Correct?

Generic 'you'? Or is this meant for me personally? Because I stayed away from the personal.

If this is meant for me, then I can tell you that I only started calling myself Christian when my Lord asked me why I was ashamed of Him (when I used to NOT call myself a Christian). I also much later asked Him when I had been anointed with holy spirit, and He reminded me of that time. I just did not understand then.

So I cannot say that it may not be true of me. Even though I cannot prove that to you.


But in general, just because someone makes the statement, does not make it true.

I could say that I am a man, but I am not... so making the statement does not make it true. I could say that I am a Christian and follow Christ... but then turn around and start a holocaust against the Jewish people, thereby proving my statement false.

Zzyzx said: Perhaps you (generic term) are following false teachings and/or are "interpreting" the Bible incorrectly. No matter how fervently you may believe you are right, there is no assurance that is true.

Perhaps you (generic) are doing so, but I must disagree that there is no assurance that it is true or false. Christ is that assurance, at least for a Christian. If something is in conflict with Christ - and that conflict is shown to you - then you can bring yourself in line with Him.

That is just a statement of fact. Not a judgment against anyone in particular, just because they aren't 'my kinda' Christians.

Zzyzx said What individual or organization is empowered / authorized to make such decisions?

Christ is authorized to make such a decision, since He is the one who makes one a Christian.

Those who belong to Him might not be authorized to make the DECISION, but they may RECOGNIZE who is or is not of Christ. Though they may mostly simply deal with the content of what is being taught/said, rather than whether or not the person is a true or false christian.

Zzyzx said If such decisions are NOT made by man but by God, NO PERSON has the ability to judge. What you (generic term) believe is "authentic Christianity" may indeed be false.

Yes, it may be. But how can we look out for 'false christs' if we are not permitted to discern between true and false? If we are not permitted to test what others claim as true?

There were many branchings in "Christianity" – first borrowing from Judaism, then fracturing, then some unification under Roman emperors to produce Roman Catholicism, then splintering of Protestantism, which in turn splintered into thousands of branches.

Each sect seems to think it has "the one true path to salvation" and the correct "interpretation of scripture."

Yes, but they cannot all be true, can they, especially if they conflict with one another, and even more especially if they conflict with Christ?

Personally, I don't follow any of them. Some of them say they are the truth, the true path, the way, etc. Some of them say 'follow me', or come to me.

I follow Christ. If someone wants me to follow them, or says 'come to me', instead of pointing to Him, I know to run from them/their voice is that of a stranger.

And if one is at least going by what is written... Christ said there would be false christs who come... and what can the followers of a false christ be other than false christians?

ZZyzx wrote: How, exactly, are "false Christs" identified (except by personal opinion)?

[/quote]

By testing what they say to see if what they claim to have been given to them by Christ truly came from Christ or not.

One would want to exercise caution in this. Just because someone misunderstands something or says something in error does not mean that they are false christians or false christs (even though they did not learn the false thing FROM Christ). You (generic you) could/should just share what you have learned from Christ, to HELP and serve, and then leave it to the person to accept or not as they choose.

You could also reason together - iron sharpening iron - to test if what you each have learned is accurate, or if perhaps one or both of you have not fully understood something.



Peace to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy (who is not skipping out on the discussion, but who does have to go to work)

[arian]

From Post 44:

...
Sin, even if it's the smallest deviation from Gods will (law) is a sin, and we all have sinned
...

Until you can show this God gives him the first tinker's dang about the doings of humans, this is but one more libel from theists.

I've seen on Fox News, CNN, NBC, CBS, read and seen pictures on the internet like Wikipedia, Google, and YouTube this gentleman named Barak Hussein Obama and that he is the 44th US President who is supposedly our leader.

Question: do you believe this President gives him the first tinker's dang about the doings of humans, let alone non-Muslim Americans he supposedly is the leader of?

Do you believe he even exists? That he is not just some construct of Jesuit/Mason/Nazi/Zionist imagination? I myself have never seen this man, have you?
Do you know anyone trustworthy enough who has seen him, that he really is our 44th President?

Why I ask is because I'm a skeptic, and "I want evidence".
I have also read that there are these so called scientists who have taken a fossilized jaw bone of a pig they have found and constructed an entire half ape half man out of it, and hundreds of articles how this ape-man lived, what he ate, including when and how he died. Oh yea, pictures and all included which are far better then of this guy George Washington they claim was real, also a US president (yeah right)

I reject the libelous slanderer who accuses me of being a "sinner", when their accusations are as empty as their claim to know the mind of a god they can't even show exists.

You a sinner? That's only for those that believe in such a thing as truth, lies, good and evil. If you believe in such a thing to be even possible, then you, .. just as we all are a sinner. But how will anyone prove to you there is such a thing as truth, lies, good and evil? Who makes up these things anyways, .. I mean can anyone define something that is good for everyone? Or bad for everyone? Or what is truth and what is lies? .. right?
Truth only makes sense if we can prove at least ONE truth that every person on earth would agree with, then we could say "truth exists", can you or anyone here do that?

Your and ttruscott's posts should be added to that religious harm thread - where we see that even after the passage of some two thousand years, some thiests still can't tell their insults from Shinola.

What one would consider an insult, could be another's warning to you of grave danger. Or ones show of affection, like a hug from me to you could be considered an insult too. So can you define 'insult', or love, or evil, or hate, or marriage between a man and woman and two dogs of the same sex getting married in Japan? (I seen it happen, brides maids, the costumes, the priest, the throwing of rice (or was it Skittles?) and all!

I want undeniable truth with evidence, not some delusional constructs of man like books, videos, documents, News Paper adds and all that stuff anyone could construct and say whatever they want in it!

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 58 by arian]

JoeyK wrote:
Your and ttruscott's posts should be added to that religious harm thread - where we see that even after the passage of some two thousand years, some thiests still can't tell their insults from Shinola.

What one would consider an insult, could be another's warning to you of grave danger. Or ones show of affection, like a hug from me to you could be considered an insult too. So can you define 'insult', or love, or evil, or hate, or marriage between a man and woman and two dogs of the same sex getting married in Japan? (I seen it happen, brides maids, the costumes, the priest, the throwing of rice (or was it Skittles?) and all!

Should the person accused of being 'insulting' by another person consider the insulted person's point of view at all? Is it reasonable to do so?

If you are speaking from promptings of the Holy Spirit, or Christ, does this give whatever you say 'immunity' from criticism, or accusations of being 'insulting'? Is it reasonable to disregard complaints against you for being offensive or insulting when you are moved to speak from your theological convictions?

Is the 'insulted' person entitled to speak out against your (the generic) Holy Spirit guided words, or should they humbly accept that you are speaking God's truth?

Were you hugging Haven in that one thread in the Politics and Religion section?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 58:

Until you can show this God gives him the first tinker's dang about the doings of humans, this is but one more libel from theists.

...
Question: do you believe this President gives him the first tinker's dang about the doings of humans, let alone non-Muslim Americans he supposedly is the leader of?

I never said the man even exists.

Do you believe he even exists? That he is not just some construct of Jesuit/Mason/Nazi/Zionist imagination? I myself have never seen this man, have you?
Do you know anyone trustworthy enough who has seen him, that he really is our 44th President?

I make no claims regarding the existence of Mr. Obama. Nor have I.

It was you who declared me a "sinner" in the eyes of your proposed god.

I point out your inability to show this god exists to even consider something a "sin", and how it is, your blanket accusation is a libel, until it can be shown to be true and factual.

Why I ask is because I'm a skeptic, and "I want evidence".
...

As I've made no claim regarding the existence of Mr. Obama, I'm under no obligation to support such a claim. Apply response to the remainder of the snipped paragraph.

I reject the libelous slanderer who accuses me of being a "sinner", when their accusations are as empty as their claim to know the mind of a god they can't even show exists.

You a sinner? That's only for those that believe in such a thing as truth, lies, good and evil. If you believe in such a thing to be even possible, then you, .. just as we all are a sinner.

arian, I like ya. I find you and your notions a fascinating study. But I ain't gonna entertain your repeated libels.


I seek to remain a productive, civil member of this site. I don't want to ruin it responding in the manner I deem needs it.


Have a great day.