Does it damage Christianity when Christians interpret the Bible themselves without the guidance of a Priest ?

Question

This causes hundreds of new splinter groups to pop up every year !!



.

Answer 1

why do you need a priest for interpreting the Bible. Priests are humans as well. Just like you and me, they have the same capability of understanding the Bible. Why then should we depend on a medium? God never said we needed a medium to understand the Bible. We all have Brains and we should use it.
There is nothing wrong with it.

Answer 2

No, I think a christian should rely on the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible to him/her. This could also be supported with the guidance of a priest and by attending bible study group. However, it may be damaging if such a christian has not really undergone any period of tutelage to know what it means to be a christian or being born again but as a mature christian with the in-filling of the Holy spirit, as you are reading the bible, the Holy spirit will be giving you interpretation to the word of God and this does not mean you should see yourself as somebody that has arrived, attend bible studies where you can rub minds with other christians and have a teachable heart.

Answer 3

No, it does not damage Christianity to have the Bible interpreted by lay people. Any translation of the Bible will be full of contradictions. If you compare translations, it brings up so many more questions too. Read the book and make your own interpretation.

Answer 4

you're making an impressive factor. i won't be able to think of how rudderless maximum Protestant Christians ought to experience with a super type of competing, supposedly maximum suitable interpretations of Scripture to compliment between. when I easily have a question approximately Scripture, I turn to a unified theology that is in keeping with 2000 years of learn and faithfulness to the unique Christian ideology. i've got self assurance a great deal extra maintain interior the "correctness" of the education provided by the Catholic Church than the flavour of the month from the loads of Protestant church homes.

Answer 5

i agree that we should go to the leaders of the church (i'm a conservative lutheran, by the way, and to us, the church has final authority over interpretation) when we have a problem understanding certain things in scripture, but i also think that it's great to get so many perspectives on the gospel, and it's important to get your own meaning from scripture. going to different churches and seeing what parts of the gospel different denominations focus most on has helped me to grow tremendously. i don't believe any one church has got every single thing right. to me, this is made clear in the book of revelation. i think that any church that adds to the body of Christ should be seen as a good thing. we should all just agree to disagree, and focus on the things that we all as christians believe when practicing fellowship together.

Answer 6

I don't think so.
I'm not a big fan of going to church myself, but I do believe in a higher power.
Does it damage atheism when an athiest bashes the Bible without guidance of...the flying spaghetti monster?

Answer 7

Not at all, they both are on the wrong track. If you want understanding, get away from both and go to the source. Christ made it Clear, if you lack understanding ask, and it will be given. you do not need a priest for that.

Answer 8

NO...of course not! The damage is done when the ignorant ACT badly based on their personal opinions. Action is wholly different from thinking... and too often based on un-educated and un-enlightened OPINIONS...rather than true intellectual thought. We must never stop checking our OPINIONS against reality! Walk in Love and Peace...have respect for yourself and others...be gentle. Hugs, Gina C.

Answer 9

Well I believe we all need to be taught by someone who has inherited the gift of pastor teacher. I do.
However, I do not believe that these folks who have that gift and use it for the Lord are any much higher up in any kind of ranks than those other believers who faithfully serve the Lord in their own inherited gift.

Answer 10

Yes


The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.