[mojassty]

Originally Posted by eMTee

There is one absolute truth taught in the Bible, but everyone tries to interpret that truth in many ways.

There are many "churches" and denominations that don't take the Bible in entirety, they do not believe random portions, and don't consider them the Bible. One question that I would have to this is; how would one determine what is true and what is not? People will claim to be Christians, but at the same time not believe the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Church (of which I'm a member) does a bit of the opposite: our Bible has a few more books in it than most other Christian churches, and we also follow rules and teachings that aren't in the Bible at all. Our religion has two main sources: the Bible, and Tradition, which is composed of writings by the early Saints, Popes, and Doctors of the Church. I don't think this is a problem because most of these traditional writings seek to explain and elaborate on what is written in the Bible. The early Christians, too, were well-versed in texts that weren't part of the Hebrew scriptures (e.g. the Book of Enoch).

The Bible is a difficult book to follow in its entirety because it has such a variety of texts in it, and many passages (especially between the OT and NT) seem contradictory unless you study them very carefully. I believe a good Christian can't just follow the particular teachings of their church, but must achieve a personal understanding of the entire Bible. Christian may worship in a community, but Faith is really a personal relationship with God, a relationship that you can't achieve well if you just blindly follow the doctrine of your church.

[sanctus]

I completely agree with paultrr's first post, the bible is by construction made to interpret, there are heaps of parabolas and from those you can draw different conclusions.
You ask if all this subsects of christianity follow the bible and I answer yes, their interpretation of it.

Take an example: the bible says somewhere to help the others. Some people as consequences think that going on a peace/freedom-mission is therefore good and join the army, others say soldiers have to kill (or help to) and that isn't helping others and therefore don't join the army. All a matter of interpretation but both think to follow the bible (look for a thread in this section called "believers in the army", if you want to see arguments from both sides, for example mine for the second side)

[mojassty]

Originally Posted by sanctus

I completely agree with paultrr's first post, the bible is by construction made to interpret, there are heaps of parabolas and from those you can draw different conclusions.
You ask if all this subsects of christianity follow the bible and I answer yes, their interpretation of it.

Take an example: the bible says somewhere to help the others. Some people as consequences think that going on a peace/freedom-mission is therefore good and join the army, others say soldiers have to kill (or help to) and that isn't helping others and therefore don't join the army. All a matter of interpretation but both think to follow the bible (look for a thread in this section called "believers in the army", if you want to see arguments from both sides, for example mine for the second side)

Kind of an ironic view, considering your avatar

The Bible is supposed to be Truth given from God, and you wouldn't think Truth would be subject to interpretation. Do you (you = anyone) think that God has to side with one interpretation or another of His scriptures? Or are many interpretations equally valid?

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by mojassty

Kind of an ironic view, considering your avatar

The Bible is supposed to be Truth given from God, and you wouldn't think Truth would be subject to interpretation. Do you (you = anyone) think that God has to side with one interpretation or another of His scriptures? Or are many interpretations equally valid?

Perhaps thats the real meaning behind the Truth shall set you free. If truth has such a variable quality then in essence no matter the faith if one recognizes the truth then one is set free. Yes, that sounds like Universalism as its commonly taught. So, be it. Truth for myself is that which I have discovered by scientific investigation. It sets me free to better understand the universe, who I am, and where we all come from. Yes, there are unanswered questions which only time will allow us to answer. But knowing the truth is far better than not knowing which perhaps is the real meaning of being set free.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by mojassty

Kind of an ironic view, considering your avatar

I choose my name without thinking of its consequences, but because listening to a song (great song actually) called Sanctus. By the way didn't you notice the horns and the beard on my avataer.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by mojassty

...you wouldn't think Truth would be subject to interpretation....

Goodness. All facts are subject to interpretation. Most of the debate in this forum is disagrement over interpretation of facts. The more important the Truth, the more critical the interpretation.

[mojassty]

Yes, I know that. What I meant was, with so many various interpretations out there, is there one correct way to interpret the Scriptures (meaning all others are wrong or misguided), or are many interpretations equally correct?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by mojassty

...What I meant was, with so many various interpretations out there, is there one correct way to interpret the Scriptures (meaning all others are wrong or misguided), or are many interpretations equally correct?

Interesting question. It is undoubtedly true that some (perhaps many) interpretations are misguided. The question as to whether a single Biblical passage has more than one interpretation has been debated for at least a thousand years. The apostle Paul occasionally took historical passages in the old testament and applied spiritually specific meaning to them. This means that at least some passages have both literal (historical) truth and also a spiritual component. Most conservative folks regard this as rare, and will contend that Paul could interpret in such as fashion because he had apostolic authority.

I do think there is a single set of Truths, and (obligatorily) a set of falsehoods as well. That is, I don't think that Truth varies by individual, any more than gravity does.

Figuring out the boundary of Truth (where it wanders into falsehood) is a little complicated. But then so is quantum physics.

[eMTee]

The Bible (like any books ment to teach) is ment to be studied, I think with everything you read, you interpret..some portions of scripture are easyer to bluntly understand than others, others requite in depth study. the moral and point of the Bible does not point in multiple directions. There is one correct interpretation of the Bible, no more, but I will not say that all my enterpretations are correct..but that is not to say I don't know anything.

I do not go by any other Book other than the intire Bible itself,

I notice that there are a whole lot of Catholics in the world..at least people who claim themselves to be Catholic, and go to Church or Mass every once in a while, But when asked about salvation they usualy always reply with a source of a "Good enough life" (in which the Bible does not suport) to go to Heaven....and then they are not quite sure about achieving Heaven eather, they seem to always reply with a "I think" or "I hope so"

The reason the Bible does not have some of the books in it, is because they are eather religously or histoicaly inacurate with the Cannon and or rest of the books. the Bible mentions at least one or two other books that arent in it, but is this an excuse to add them into the Bible?

[mojassty]

Originally Posted by eMTee

I notice that there are a whole lot of Catholics in the world..at least people who claim themselves to be Catholic, and go to Church or Mass every once in a while, But when asked about salvation they usualy always reply with a source of a "Good enough life" (in which the Bible does not suport) to go to Heaven....and then they are not quite sure about achieving Heaven eather, they seem to always reply with a "I think" or "I hope so"

The reason the Bible does not have some of the books in it, is because they are eather religously or histoicaly inacurate with the Cannon and or rest of the books. the Bible mentions at least one or two other books that arent in it, but is this an excuse to add them into the Bible?

Sadly, I've also noticed a lot of people like the ones you talk about, both in the Catholic Church and in other churches. Although there are many Christians who are devout and well-versed in their religion, there is also an alarming number of people who don't consider their faith an important aspect of their life and are too lazy to investigate their religion on their own. They attend services simply because it keeps them from feeling guilty about the state of their spirituality.

I never suggested that other books be added to the Bible. The extra "Catholic" books of the Old Testament are not bizarre obscure books. I've even seen them in Protestant Bibles, listed (along with a few others) under a section between the OT and NT called the "Apocrypha." They must be respectable, if other Christian sects still include them in their Bibles.

As for Catholic Tradition, they are meant to supplement the Bible, but are certainly not of the same caliber as Scripture. Tradition includes texts that (a) Give us doctrine about issues that aren't discussed in detail in the Bible (such as the mass ceremony and the sacraments), and (b) help to explain and interpret the Scriptures.