Encouragement to study the Bible

[Elijah John]

More than a few Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers encourage their followers to study the Bible each day on their own. In the grand old Protestant tradition of the "Priesthood of all believers".

One wonders, (and this is the question for debate) would they be so encouraging if the rank and file came up with non-conventional, unorthodox interpretations of Scripture?

The way some of us here on these boards have done?

Say...if the independent Bible scholar through his or her own studies learned things like:

-The Bible never teaches the Trinity
-The Bible contradicts itself in some very important ways
-The Bible never really teaches that Jesus is "God" (except, arguably, for the Evangelist John)
-That blood sacrifice is not what God ever wanted or needed.
-That Jesus didn't return when he said he would. (in the lifetime of his apostles)
-That Jesus is not in the Old Testament.
-That Old Testament characters were in communion with the Father without going through Jesus, and did not pray in the Messiah's (Jesus) name.

Would Protestant Evangelical Bible teachers still encourage independent Bible reading in these cases? Would they encourage their followers to share the results of their studies?

Or would they stifle the results of such scholarship?

[alwayson]

-That blood sacrifice is not what God ever wanted or needed.
.....
-That Jesus is not in the Old Testament.

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, called "the man named 'Rising'" who is said to rise from his place below, building up God’s house, given supreme authority over God’s domain and ending all sins in a single day.

Daniel 9 describes a messiah dying before the end of the world.

Isaiah 52-53 describes the cleansing of the world's sins by the death of a servant.

Psalm 22-24 describes the death-resurrection cycle.

-That Jesus didn't return when he said he would. (in the lifetime of his apostles)

The main scriptures of early Christianity were Paul's letters.

Mark and Matthew were intended to be symbolic fiction, not give doctrine.

For example, the Barabbas story is the Yom Kippur ceremony of Leviticus 16 and Mishnah tractate Yoma: two ‘identical’ goats were chosen each year, and one was released into the wild containing the sins of Israel (which was eventually killed by being pushed over a cliff), while the other’s blood was shed to atone for those sins. Barabbas means ‘Son of the Father’ in Aramaic, and we know Jesus was deliberately styled the ‘Son of the Father’ himself. So we have two sons of the father; one is released into the wild mob containing the sins of Israel (murder and rebellion), while the other is sacrificed so his blood may atone for the sins of Israel—the one who is released bears those sins literally; the other, figuratively. Adding weight to this conclusion is manuscript evidence that the story originally had the name ‘Jesus Barabbas’. Thus we really had two men called ‘Jesus Son of the Father’.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by alwayson]

Putting the particulars of the examples aside, (that's not what I intended to debate on this thread) let's get back to the over-arching topic.

IF independent Bible study led to such unorthodox conclusions as listed, how do you suppose Evangelical Bible teachers (Fundamentalist, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc..) would respond?

Encourage sharing and discussion? Or "keep it to yourself" kind of stifling, or perhaps some kind of theological intervention for the sake of preserving doctrinal purity?

Would the "loose cannon" be subject to re-indoctrination, or "shunning"?

I realize the OP calls for a degree of speculation, but if anyone has any examples where this kind of thing has happened in Churches that they know of, please share.

[paarsurrey1]

More than a few Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers encourage their followers to study the Bible each day on their own. In the grand old Protestant tradition of the "Priesthood of all believers".

One wonders, (and this is the question for debate) would they be so encouraging if the rank and file came up with non-conventional, unorthodox interpretations of Scripture?

The way some of us here on these boards have done?

Say...if the independent Bible scholar through his or her own studies learned things like:

-The Bible never teaches the Trinity
-The Bible contradicts itself in some very important ways
-The Bible never really teaches that Jesus is "God" (except, arguably, for the Evangelist John)
-That blood sacrifice is not what God ever wanted or needed.
-That Jesus didn't return when he said he would. (in the lifetime of his apostles)
-That Jesus is not in the Old Testament.
-That Old Testament characters were in communion with the Father without going through Jesus, and did not pray in the Messiah's (Jesus) name.

Would Protestant Evangelical Bible teachers still encourage independent Bible reading in these cases? Would they encourage their followers to share the results of their studies?

Or would they stifle the results of such scholarship?

The revealed scriptures are for the benefit of everybody, so no harm if an ordinary person wants to self-study Bible. I studied Bible, OT and NT, both Catholic and Protestant versions through my own self-study. It took me some years to complete it as I studied it intently.

I agree with following conclusions about Bible mentioned above with little changes:

-The Bible never teaches the Trinity
-The Bible contradicts itself in some very important ways
-The Bible never really teaches that Jesus is "God" in literal and physical terms.
-That blood sacrifice is not what God ever wanted or needed.
-That Jesus didn't return when he said he would. (in the lifetime of his apostles)
-That Old Testament characters were in communion with the God without going through Jesus, and did not pray in the Messiah's (Jesus) name.

Regards

[paarsurrey1]

-That blood sacrifice is not what God ever wanted or needed.
.....
-That Jesus is not in the Old Testament.

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, called "the man named 'Rising'" who is said to rise from his place below, building up God’s house, given supreme authority over God’s domain and ending all sins in a single day.

Daniel 9 describes a messiah dying before the end of the world.

Isaiah 52-53 describes the cleansing of the world's sins by the death of a servant.

Psalm 22-24 describes the death-resurrection cycle.

-That Jesus didn't return when he said he would. (in the lifetime of his apostles)

The main scriptures of early Christianity were Paul's letters.

Mark and Matthew were intended to be symbolic fiction, not give doctrine.

For example, the Barabbas story is the Yom Kippur ceremony of Leviticus 16 and Mishnah tractate Yoma: two ‘identical’ goats were chosen each year, and one was released into the wild containing the sins of Israel (which was eventually killed by being pushed over a cliff), while the other’s blood was shed to atone for those sins. Barabbas means ‘Son of the Father’ in Aramaic, and we know Jesus was deliberately styled the ‘Son of the Father’ himself. So we have two sons of the father; one is released into the wild mob containing the sins of Israel (murder and rebellion), while the other is sacrificed so his blood may atone for the sins of Israel—the one who is released bears those sins literally; the other, figuratively. Adding weight to this conclusion is manuscript evidence that the story originally had the name ‘Jesus Barabbas’. Thus we really had two men called ‘Jesus Son of the Father’.

The main scriptures of early Christianity were Paul's letters.
Mark and Matthew were intended to be symbolic fiction, not give doctrine.

Is the above a valid observation, please?

Regards

[bjs]

I am not really sure what would happen if there was a big disconnect between Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers and what people were finding the Bible. Most likely, those Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers would change what they were teaching.

Most of those Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers came to the beliefs they hold because they studied the scriptures. The overwhelming majority of people who have studied the scriptures agree with those Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers.

There are always going to be exception. However, the issues mentioned in the opening post are not what most independent Bible scholars find in the scriptures. Rather, they find that the NT consistently teaches that Jesus is God, that the Trinity is biblical, that the objection some people bring up about the return of Christ is not valid, etc.

I doubt Evangelical Protestant Bible teachers would encourage people to stop studying the Bible if it led to unorthodox Christian beliefs. It is far more likely that what is orthodox Christianity would change to follow what the Bible does teach. However, the reason that preachers do encourage Bible study is that, for the vast majority of people, studying the scriptures leads people to orthodox Christianity.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

The more voices the better. I find the arguments of you alwayson and paarsurrey very comforting. Actually its amazing to have such a uniquely homogenous orthodox narrative when you think about it.

I was listening about the life of william tynsdale who i am told we can attribute almost a 3rd of our English bibles to who was burned alive for letting the people read the bible.

Please do all enjoy the bible.

[Elijah John]

However, the reason that preachers do encourage Bible study is that, for the vast majority of people, studying the scriptures leads people to orthodox Christianity.

Why do you suppose then, Bill Bright in his "Four Spiritual Laws" pamphlet encouraged the new convert to begin their studies with the Gospel of John?

Why do you suppose his pamphlet contains only references from the GoJ and the letters of Paul?

Could it be that if one started say, with Genesis, or with Matthew, one would not independently reach the conclusion that "Jesus is God"?

Could it be that "Orthodoxy" is almost entirely based on the Johannine and Pauline filters?

[ttruscott]

Say...if the independent Bible scholar through his or her own studies learned things like:

-The Bible never teaches the Trinity
-The Bible contradicts itself in some very important ways
-The Bible never really teaches that Jesus is "God" (except, arguably, for the Evangelist John)
-That blood sacrifice is not what God ever wanted or needed.
-That Jesus didn't return when he said he would. (in the lifetime of his apostles)
-That Jesus is not in the Old Testament.
-That Old Testament characters were in communion with the Father without going through Jesus, and did not pray in the Messiah's (Jesus) name.
Or would they stifle the results of such scholarship?

...this reminds me so much of the twitter game, #ExplainAFilmPlotBadly in which users attempt to describe the story of a movie in such broad strokes that it points to socially unacceptable or contemptible behavior of the characters. ie, the Wizard of Oz: Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first person she meets then teams up with three strangers to kill again.

It is so often used here that it should get its own mention as a logical fallacy rather than just as a strawman...

[Elijah John]

Say...if the independent Bible scholar through his or her own studies learned things like:

-The Bible never teaches the Trinity
-The Bible contradicts itself in some very important ways
-The Bible never really teaches that Jesus is "God" (except, arguably, for the Evangelist John)
-That blood sacrifice is not what God ever wanted or needed.
-That Jesus didn't return when he said he would. (in the lifetime of his apostles)
-That Jesus is not in the Old Testament.
-That Old Testament characters were in communion with the Father without going through Jesus, and did not pray in the Messiah's (Jesus) name.
Or would they stifle the results of such scholarship?

...this reminds me so much of the twitter game, #ExplainAFilmPlotBadly in which users attempt to describe the story of a movie in such broad strokes that it points to socially unacceptable or contemptible behavior of the characters. ie, the Wizard of Oz: Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first person she meets then teams up with three strangers to kill again.

It is so often used here that it should get its own mention as a logical fallacy rather than just as a strawman...

Not sure how your analogy matches, but OK, it's quite interesting.

Also, your own PCE theology is quite unorthodox and makes a good example for this thread. While I don't accept it, I do applaud you for thinking for yourself. No doubt your PCE is derived from your own studies of the Bible?

I wonder what the typical Evangelical pastor or Creedal Christian would think of PCE, and if you would be encouraged to continue your own Bible studies, or would be subject to "correction", silencing, shunning or re-indoctrination.