Is Jesus the only way to Heaven? How do you interpret these scriptures? - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-07-2004, 07:14 PM   #241
New Yorker
AvsGirl41's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 06:18 PM
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart
i seem to remember posting that i was wrong when i said "literally" what i meant was inerrant. i agree with what nbc says above, symbolism is clearly used, and we have to interperate that. i also agree that those interpretations have to be made in regards to the context of the verses in context and with the bible as a whole.

also, i never once said that luther was given a special revelation. luther did however base what he wrote on scripture, not on his own feelings or the popular sentiments of the time. if you are going to argue the nature of God, debate how salvation works, and try and decide who gets into heaven, you have to go back and see what the scriptures say.

as said, martin luther did find his answers in scripture, therefore, i think it to be prudent to at least consider the answers that luther found there, instead of starting my readings from scratch.

by post-modern, i mean those who argue that there is no absolute truth everything is subjective. an example of this type of thinking would be the retired episcopalian bishop jack spong.

of course there are many dogmas that are not scripturally based. that was the whole idea behing luther's theses. that the church had gotten out of control, and was no longer basing it's belief on Biblical Truth. the church must fight against these inaccuracies, and strive to be as Biblically accurate as possible.

and just to ask, who would you place in the top seat of authority when it comes to interperating the scriptures?

But Luther did very much write from his own feelings. He read the scripture and believed the Catholic Church were on the wrong path. The Catholic Church didn't think so--and still don't. They feel they are reading the Scriptures correctly. They base their beliefs on the Scriptures, too. I was raised Lutheran (so I know the whole Luther tale) and my Catholic friends just sigh in pity for me--literally!

All interpretation, even when it becomes church doctrine, is a matter of personal belief. There's no getting around it, no matter how much Scripture one reads or how pure the writer's (whether it be Luther, or an Interferencer) intentions are.

As for my top authority, I personally don't have one. I suppose Stephen Harris, and the editors of my Oxford Study Bible, because they are from a wide range of backgrounds and have provided readers with as much historical/religious/literary information as possible, in an unbiased manner so I can read and judge for myself. Does that mean I consider myself an authority? Certainly not.

But really, since we're on the topic of Luther, that's precisely what the whole Reformation was all about--giving people access to the Bible, so they could read and judge it for themselves. Justification by faith alone. We weren't supposed to need an authority or an intermediary to tell us what it said, or what it meant. It was all about that individual, personal faith and having a relationship with God. Getting rid of the stuff in the middle.

So, to be honest, I don't trust any religious authority coming from a church instutition, and most do. That's one aspect of the Reformation I do agree with--I don't really want an intermediary. I have yet to read any of their Biblical interpretation that didn't come from an incredibly biased, "you're all going to hell but us and here's where it says so" point of view. That's due to my own personal interactions and experiences, which are too long to get into now. Maybe I'm playing with hellfire, but surely I can beg forgiveness.

AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 12-07-2004, 07:15 PM   #242
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,882
Local Time: 08:18 PM
Originally posted by nbcrusader

There is clear use of symbolism in Scripture, where a literal interpretation is misleading and potentially dangerous (I'm thinking of the people who worship with snakes, for example).

Also, many of God's attributes are not clearly defined. They are inferred from God's actions, statements, etc.

A specific example is the Trinity. Not specifically spelled out in Scripture, but definitely inferable and supportable by Scripture.

However, if I am to make a statement about God, I want it to be supported by Scripture, preferably multiple passages. If I rely on only one passage, I would do so if it did not contradict other statements in Scripture.
SO the belief in the trinity would support my belief that not everything we know about God is literally in the scriptures?

I agree that statements about God should be supported.

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 10:39 AM   #243
thacraic's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:18 PM
Originally posted by deep

scriptures are used to devide

to separate

us / them

it is not good

these scriptures are just words

serving the purposes of the writers

Ok lets see...

First I will address shart's initial post. I believe in those Scriptures wholy. No comment or argument from me in regards to the validity of them. Its truth pure and simple. Thanks for putting them on the board.

Now onto deep's post....

Let's just take Paul for example, seeing as how he wrote a good many of the books found in the New Testament.

What "purpose" did Paul have for writing what he did? Was it because he enjoyed being repatedly thrown into prision and beaten ? Or was if for personal gain, or wealth or social status? If it's the latter, he had all that BEFORE he became a Christian, but after his conversion, he lived on very little and devoted his life to his ministry. That leaves us with the former, and I may be going out on a limb here saying this but I really don't think that was the case.

So that leaves us with the only other possibility, which is this. The only personal interest Paul had and all the authors of the New Testament (and Old for that matter) was to put down in text what God had inspired them to write.

If you would, elaborate on what personal interest you feel these people had that compelled them to write what they did. I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.


thacraic is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©