Is the idea of "One True Church" Biblical? (Jesus, gospel)

[pray4me]

Originally Posted by sojourner

This is now the third time you have used the same post in three different debates!

Yes! Yes! Yes! One does need a grounding in theology. One does need to apply scholarship to the interpretation of scripture. These repetitive posts are an exellent example of why. You have run out of argument, because you are not grounded in these things. You've resorted to a (poor) general, one-size-fits-all argument, because it's all you know.

Your statement seems very narrow in it's view. Are you stating that everyday people are incapable of understanding scripture? What does theology teach you that makes your interpretation so much more valuable? Anyone can learn hebrew and get a lexicon. Then they will know as close as possible what the original scriptures said. Or maybe they should take a look at the dead sea scrolls for an idea. Do you know what the original document's said the name of God was? The original tetrahedron was Yod He Vav He, correctly translated into english as YHVH yet most people try to change one of the letters. They make the vav into a W or the Yod into a J, even people who have had theological training.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by pray4me

Your statement seems very narrow in it's view. Are you stating that everyday people are incapable of understanding scripture? What does theology teach you that makes your interpretation so much more valuable? Anyone can learn hebrew and get a lexicon. Then they will know as close as possible what the original scriptures said. Or maybe they should take a look at the dead sea scrolls for an idea. Do you know what the original document's said the name of God was? The original tetrahedron was Yod He Vav He, correctly translated into english as YHVH yet most people try to change one of the letters. They make the vav into a W or the Yod into a J, even people who have had theological training.

Your understanding seems narrow. I'm not saying that everyday people are incapable of understanding scripture. I'm just saying to use the tools the Church has placed at your hands. If one is farming, one uses the best tools one has available. If one is building a bridge, one uses the best tools available. Why do we insist on relegating the holy scriptures to the obscurity of uninformed opinion? I dodn't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go across a bridge that had been built without the benefit of engineering design. Why would I want to ascribe valuable meaning to holy scripture that had not been reseached and thought out, as far as I am able?

The Bible is a theological entity. It only stands to reason that knowing the theology that informed the writing of the Bible will also inform its interpretation.

Interpretation goes way beyond just knowing the Greek or Hebrew words. There's colloquialism, there's cultural anthropology, there's literary criticism, etc. All of these are tools that inform our interpretation.

I'm quite well-versed in the tetragrammaton (tetrahedron is a four-sided object -- like a pyramid). Substituting the Y for J, or the V for W is a moot point. These letters are all substitute for the Hebrew figures, anyway. I don't see what this example has to do with the specific issue of using our available tools when we interpret scripture. Maybe I'm missing a point you'd like to make?

[pray4me]

Sorry about the misword, I couldn't remember the exact name of it. Why do you think J is a viable substitute for Yod and Y isn't? Why is W a subsitute for Vav when the letter is clearly pronounced like a V. The point I'm trying to make is that theologists are just as human and prone to error and mistakes as any of the rest of us. Why trust their opinion? Are we sheep that we need someone to lead us? Have we not brains in our own heads to figure it out for ourselves?

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by pray4me

Sorry about the misword, I couldn't remember the exact name of it. Why do you think J is a viable substitute for Yod and Y isn't? Why is W a subsitute for Vav when the letter is clearly pronounced like a V. The point I'm trying to make is that theologists are just as human and prone to error and mistakes as any of the rest of us. Why trust their opinion? Are we sheep that we need someone to lead us? Have we not brains in our own heads to figure it out for ourselves?

Because the linguists who translated the tetragrammaton were German. In German, J is pronounced "Y." W is pronounced "V." We trust their opinion, because their opinion is generally (not always) more informed than ours. We are always free to disagree with them, but they at least provide us with a third-party perspective that we can use to test our own perspective against.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't try and build a skyscraper without a structural engineer who knows more about statics than I do...

[pray4me]

So when translating it into english we should forget the fact that the germans tranlated it jhwh because their letters are pronounced different and should translate it the same way ourselves? A theologist is much like a trivia expert. They may know a lot of facts but that's not indicative of understanding. Someone may know every trivial detail about cars and how they work but that does not mean they understand how to fix it. The number of different understandings of the bible, even among theologists, is as differing as the amount of people who read it. I'm sure there are some theologists who have it right just as I'm sure there are people who aren't theologists and do not know them who have it right also. I would no more say that the study of theology is completely unnecessary than you should say it is completely neccessary. It all depends on the person.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by pray4me

So when translating it into english we should forget the fact that the germans tranlated it jhwh because their letters are pronounced different and should translate it the same way ourselves? A theologist is much like a trivia expert. They may know a lot of facts but that's not indicative of understanding. Someone may know every trivial detail about cars and how they work but that does not mean they understand how to fix it. The number of different understandings of the bible, even among theologists, is as differing as the amount of people who read it. I'm sure there are some theologists who have it right just as I'm sure there are people who aren't theologists and do not know them who have it right also. I would no more say that the study of theology is completely unnecessary than you should say it is completely neccessary. It all depends on the person.

The whole tetragrammaton example is not cogent to the issue. it means the same thing, no matter how you spell it. We know it means the same thing. We read it the same way. it informs our understanding in the same way. Theology, grasshopper, is a way of understanding. Theology takes the trivia puzzle and puts the pieces together in a manner that creates understanding. the whole beauty of the Bible is that it is able to be interpreted in multiple ways. but those interpretations have to be theologically sound, or the interpretations make no sense.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by sojourner

This is now the third time you have used the same post in three different debates!

Yes! Yes! Yes! One does need a grounding in theology. One does need to apply scholarship to the interpretation of scripture. These repetitive posts are an exellent example of why. You have run out of argument, because you are not grounded in these things. You've resorted to a (poor) general, one-size-fits-all argument, because it's all you know.

My argument is repetitive because its stands. all you have done is say i interpreted it wrong. and thats how it has been for the othe threads you have been replying too.

All you have done is tell the whole forum of you 8 scholarships... Peter was a just a fisherman, and he wrote a gospel.... the grace of God was enough for him.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

My argument is repetitive because its stands. all you have done is say i interpreted it wrong. and thats how it has been for the othe threads you have been replying too.

All you have done is tell the whole forum of you 8 scholarships... Peter was a just a fisherman, and he wrote a gospel.... the grace of God was enough for him.

Peter didn't write a gospel. But...he did engage in scriptural scholarship and theological development. What do you think he did, following his Teacher around for 3 years? Clean fish? No. He left his nets and followed Jesus. If that's not scholarship and learning, I don't know what is!