Of course others CAN have different interpretations (what’s to stop them?) but that doesn’t make their interpretations relevant or in line with God’s teachings. Some interpretations are blatantly opposed to God’s teachings (by design), in fact. Mormons have vastly different interpretations of God, the Bible, faith, and religion and they are so far out in left field that I consider them heathens and idolatrous worshippers. Have you ever debated a Mormon? There isn’t much common ground there.
We don’t agree that the first Christians were Catholics. I’m not sure what else there is to say about that. I’m getting old and I’ve known many Catholics, some actively speak of the Pope and God interchangeably, which I find blasphemous.
The Gospels meaning Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? It’s unclear when they were written, but sometime in the late first century wouldn’t surprise me.
Who's to say what's right and what's wrong? As you can see with interpreting the US Constitution, liberal or conservative justice come to very different opinions on what look like black and white issues.
As for those Catholics you knew, there is a particular Catholic heresy called papalism. It's no better or worse, than say, unitarianism. It is embarrassing though.
It doesn't help my argument, per se, but don't let anybody ever tell you that the Matthew and Mark were written after 70AD, it's athiestic scholars who want to push the dates back. Jesus predicted the temple destruction and it happened as he said it would, within one generation. There is strong evidence that they were written before the late 1st century.
Okay, that said, if Christ ascended to heaven in about 36 or so AD, and the Gospels written many years later. That would mean that the first Christians didn't rely on the Bible for their faith.
That’s why literal interpretation, when practical, is the safer path. Some non-believers would immediately say, “But the OT law and to literally follow it is horrific!” and I agree and say we are now under the New Law. That’s also why I’m only comfortable saying I’m a “Christian” and nothing else. I’m of the belief that the Word of God, the Bible and the actual words of God and Christ, have endured and presented itself in its form at any given time for the people’s needs. So, as you highlight, I believe word of human mouth and stories helped the people seek God’s salvation even during that period you’ve identified when there was no Bible (recently after Christ’s death to whenever the Gospels were written, and I’m in agreement with you that pre-70AD is certainly possible).
Of course others CAN have different interpretations (what’s to stop them?) but that doesn’t make their interpretations relevant or in line with God’s teachings. Some interpretations are blatantly opposed to God’s teachings (by design), in fact. Mormons have vastly different interpretations of God, the Bible, faith, and religion and they are so far out in left field that I consider them heathens and idolatrous worshippers. Have you ever debated a Mormon? There isn’t much common ground there.
We don’t agree that the first Christians were Catholics. I’m not sure what else there is to say about that. I’m getting old and I’ve known many Catholics, some actively speak of the Pope and God interchangeably, which I find blasphemous.
The Gospels meaning Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? It’s unclear when they were written, but sometime in the late first century wouldn’t surprise me.
Who's to say what's right and what's wrong? As you can see with interpreting the US Constitution, liberal or conservative justice come to very different opinions on what look like black and white issues.
As for those Catholics you knew, there is a particular Catholic heresy called papalism. It's no better or worse, than say, unitarianism. It is embarrassing though.
It doesn't help my argument, per se, but don't let anybody ever tell you that the Matthew and Mark were written after 70AD, it's athiestic scholars who want to push the dates back. Jesus predicted the temple destruction and it happened as he said it would, within one generation. There is strong evidence that they were written before the late 1st century.
Okay, that said, if Christ ascended to heaven in about 36 or so AD, and the Gospels written many years later. That would mean that the first Christians didn't rely on the Bible for their faith.
That’s why literal interpretation, when practical, is the safer path. Some non-believers would immediately say, “But the OT law and to literally follow it is horrific!” and I agree and say we are now under the New Law. That’s also why I’m only comfortable saying I’m a “Christian” and nothing else. I’m of the belief that the Word of God, the Bible and the actual words of God and Christ, have endured and presented itself in its form at any given time for the people’s needs. So, as you highlight, I believe word of human mouth and stories helped the people seek God’s salvation even during that period you’ve identified when there was no Bible (recently after Christ’s death to whenever the Gospels were written, and I’m in agreement with you that pre-70AD is certainly possible).
Then we are closer to each other in our beliefs than we are apart.
I'm off this place for the weekend, and maybe a week or two after that, because I use it to procrastinate, and I've got some deadlines. Stay frosty.
See ya. Thanks for the conversation.