Originally posted by telerion
Very few xians actually read the Bible and form their own opinion. They follow study guides and Bible footnotes to interpret passages to be consistent with what they have been taught already.

Very few people read the US Constitution and form their own opinions; and even if they do, their opinions have no authority (unless they're on the majority of the SCOTUS).

Originally posted by telerion
In the case of xianity, it's "respective received tradition" is actually a whole set of hundreds of different traditions.

I disagree with you on this, but perhaps I'm just misinterpreting what you wrote.

Could you elaborate?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I disagree with you on this, but perhaps I'm just misinterpreting what you wrote.

Could you elaborate?

I took "respective received tradition" to be a socialized doctrine that is independent of a person's reading and which forms the broader belief system of that person. When the person reads their religious book(s) by themselves, they generally impose their doctrine upon the text. In the case of xianity, this exercise helps them digest a text that is often very dry and obscure as well as smooths away any seeming contradictions. Put simply the "respective received tradition" is the "magic decoder ring."

I hope this also clarifies why I believe their are a great many such traditions in xianity. Catholics and Protestants read many verses differently. Within Protestantism there are many conflicting denominations with varying degrees of difference in their tradition. Catholics and Protestants alike share many of the same larger plotlines in their tradition, but significant ingredients in their stories are not alike.

Originally posted by telerion
I took "respective received tradition" to be a socialized doctrine that is independent of a person's reading and which forms the broader belief system of that person. When the person reads their religious book(s) by themselves, they generally impose their doctrine upon the text. In the case of xianity, this exercise helps them digest a text that is often ...[text shortened]... plotlines in their tradition, but significant ingredients in their stories are not alike.

A few points/observations:

1. Isn't what you say true, in general, of any literary work? One group of academics (say, at Oxford) may read Romeo and Juliet as a story about class struggle between the bourgeoise and the proletariat whereas another group (say, at Cambridge) may read it as a story about the Catholic-Protestant struggle in Reformation England. Is 'respective received tradition' synonymous with a particular communal interpretation of the text?

2. Do you hold that all such traditions/interpretations are equal? Going back to Shakespeare, would the interpretation provided by a group of sixth graders carry equal weight to that by historians of Elizabethan literature? Would a tradition originating from notes and comments by Shakespeare's daughter and close friends be of equal authority to that by his critics, or literary critics who ignore that evidence?

3. In Catholic and Orthodox theology, the term 'Tradition' (more precisely, Sacred Tradition) has a more specific meaning -- it refers to extra-Biblical truths received from the Apostles (truths that they themselves heard either directly from Jesus or received as a gift of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost); i.e. it refers to the oral tradition or revelation that complements the Bible (which wasn't composed for a few decades after Christ's death at the earliest and wasn't canonised till a few centuries later).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll bite.

Prophets are like other human beings when it comes to the propensity to sin; what matters is not how many times they fall down, but how many times they get back up and look up to the Lord.

No it to matters. It is an important sign to belive him. If a man you know is murdrare , accused for adultry , and any other type of morality. How can you accept him as a prophet without the Bible saying he is a prophet? Do you think that GOD will choose a man that is not imoral to carry his important message.

Originally posted by ahosyney
No [it] matters. It is an important sign to [believe] him. If a man you know is [a murderer], accused for adultry , [or] any other type of [immorality]... [how] can you accept him as a prophet without the Bible saying he is a prophet? Do you think that GOD will choose a man that is not [moral] to carry his important message[?]

Sure. God can choose anyone he wants to be the bearer of His message. All that is needed from the person himself/herself is the openness to God's Spirit and the willingness to do as God asks of him/her.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Sure. God can choose anyone he wants to be the bearer of His message. All that is needed from the person himself/herself is the openness to God's Spirit and the willingness to do as God asks of him/her.

Do you see GOD's spirit?

No.

One of the things that tell you that a man is a prophet is his behaviour. Did he follow the message he came with or not?

If tell me don't do adultry and he do it. How can I belive him?

The prophet should be an example for his followers. If he is not then I will follow him.

Note: You said it is not important if they sin, but Important is they go back to the way. Do the Bible say the Lot go Back to the way after doing adultry with his two daughters? What the value we can get from this story?

Originally posted by telerion
I took "respective received tradition" to be a socialized doctrine that is independent of a person's reading and which forms the broader belief system of that person. When the person reads their religious book(s) by themselves, they generally impose their doctrine upon the text. In the case of xianity, this exercise helps them digest a text that is often ...[text shortened]... plotlines in their tradition, but significant ingredients in their stories are not alike.

"Magic decoder ring" -- LOL!

Recced.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
"Magic decoder ring" -- LOL!

Recced.

Well I can't take credit for the phrase, but I'll accept the praise. 🙂

Originally posted by ckoh1965
Never mind how I want God to confirm. All I am saying is that your belief is based on something that hasn't been confirmed. Your belief is based on faith. It is that faith that I don't have, you see. If God can appear in person to confirm the contents of the holy book, then it would be best. But I don't expect it to happen.

Can anyone say Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by whodey
Can anyone say Jesus Christ?

Do you want to day that Jesus Christ is the GOD came to tell us about the holy books.

Do you know that Jesus Christ said that the Bible is corrupted.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Do you want to day that Jesus Christ is the GOD came to tell us about the holy books.

Do you know that Jesus Christ said that the Bible is corrupted.

Show me where Christ says that the Bible is corrupted.

BTW, do you believe him to be the Messiah?

Originally posted by whodey
Show me where Christ says that the Bible is corrupted.

BTW, do you believe him to be the Messiah?

Mathew: 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
hypocrites Mark 7:6

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
This Isa 29:13, Mark 7:6

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And also see Mark 7:6-12

It doens't say the Bible , because there was no Bible. But it say the commnadments that Jewish were teaching were commandments of men.

------------------

There are other places where GOD admit the people modified his words:

Jeremiah8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

[i]Jermiah 23: 29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.

31 Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.

32 Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.

33 And when this people, or the prophet, or a priest, shall ask thee, saying, What is the burden of the LORD? thou shalt then say unto them, What burden? I will even forsake you, saith the LORD.

34 And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The burden of the LORD, I will even punish that man and his house.

35
Thus shall ye say every one to his neighbour, and every one to his brother, What hath the LORD answered? and, What hath the LORD spoken?

36 And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God. [/b]

Originally posted by ahosyney
Mathew: 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
hypocrites Mark 7:6

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
This Isa 29:13, Mark 7:6

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the [b]commandments of men.

And also see Ma ...[text shortened]... burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God. [/b][/b]

Wow. This is perhaps the most fatuous, unhistoricized interpretation of those verses I've ever read.

The fact is that words do not speak for themselves. Semantic meaning relies on communal context and metaphor, and when you take a bunch of words out of one conversation and put them into another, you lose something.

How much you lose depends on how far you take them, and how much of the original context you know and are able to interweave into the new context. Being a non-native reader/speaker trying to grapple with the language by yourself doesn't help, either. And I say that fully conscious of the irony implicit in an American from the southern U.S. talking about a bunch of texts translated from languages other than English into English.

To commit the error again, let me quote Fredric Jameson's imperative in brief: "always historicize." There ain't no text out of context.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Wow. This is perhaps the most fatuous, unhistoricized interpretation of those verses I've ever read.

The fact is that words do not speak for themselves. Semantic meaning relies on communal context and metaphor, and when you take a bunch of words out of one conversation and put them into another, you lose something.

How much you lose depends on how f c Jameson's imperative in brief: "always historicize." There ain't no text out of context.

Sorry, may be I made a mistake, but can you show it to me.

Can you refere me to the true meaning of these verses?

I don't try to take anything out of its context.

Thank you for your comments that I didn't understand.

Note:I don't read the Bible in English, I read in Arabic, and go to translations.