/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Ortho crew first post

>>646372

The tribe would be indistinguishable from random "bible" belt protestants who have only ever known what their ignorant "pastors" make up as they go along

>>646378

would that condemn them?

Also I wouldn't compare them to that, these people come in contact with the bible while in contact of the rest of the world, with preconceived notions of faith from some long dead minister. The tribe would be quite distinct.

>>646379

You underestimate the level of isolation a small community can reach, even in a western nation, both out of distance and out of lack of interest.

>>646386

So you're saying that given no intellectual rigor or contact, the interpretation of the bible would be like that of Protestants in the south?

I suppose that's possible, but I wouldn't apply it to every situation. I mean, the folk you're talking about interpret the bible literally to the letter and the ambiguous parts interpret as whatever is politically convenient, (right?) but why would the same sort of interpretations happen with the tribe? What if the tribe's concepts are completely alien to anything Western, so even the preconceived ideas aren't the same and thus develop differently.

>>646372

winnie the pooh'em all. Jesus is your buddy.

>>646391

I think a divergence factor would be the tribe's lack of taught hatred for the Church

>>646372

>So what I'm basically getting at is would you consider this particular interpretation valid?

Yes, unless it makes God a liar if it were true titus 1:2 or more specifically these men are lieing and not of God. Then why not consider it?

>But let's say that the chief is convinced that his people's interpretation of the bible and practices of faith are wrong. In that case, having no knowledge whatsoever of the outside world, which Christian denomination could he possibly deduce to be the right one?

None of them, because he would then read 1 corinthians 3:4-7 in whatever language he has it in.

>For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

>Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

>I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

>So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

And then conclude that they rather should 1 corinthians 1:12-13

>Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

>Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Saying, I am of Christ, rather then

<I am of paul

<I am of the pope

<I am of luther

<I am of (insert denomination/carnal leader here)

/thread

>>646378

That case would only be if they didn't actually believe what was written down in the Bible. OR the interpretation/version they were using would not be of God.

Also this >>646396

>>646377

fpbp

>the sky is blue, says the man

>no, it is pink, says the fool

>both of you have the same authority on this measure, says the insane.

There's a saying that the devil can only count to two. For the devil there's only the man and the desert. But for God the trinity, there's the man, the desert and the camel that lets the man pass. The number 3 is a camel's back for this reason.

In Scripture, there's the mind of the man, the Bible and the mind of the writer. Take the writer out of the equation and it all falls apart from Godliness to materialism. This is why protestants can't seem to grasp interpretation or symbolism.

Realize the lack of trinity in ungodly thought in your daily life.

>We must have equality (1) for the people (2)

There's a 3rd one missing, and it is the context, as always: To do what with (3) ?

>>646372

>thought experiment

Never listen to these

The Bible was never intended to be the sole spokesman of Christianity. The Apostles were. The Bible is the abridged version of the Church that the Apostles created. It's the difference between speaking with an expert on the subject and reading a book he wrote. While the book may be very good and not contain any errors, you can't question the book if you have a question and get any answers other than your own feeble guesses. Also, a reader may think he knows what the author is saying, but because he's a layman and not an expert in the field, his understanding of what has been written may be erroneous. If you sit down with the author, not only can he explain the parts that were confusing in different ways, but he can also tell you about things that he never wrote down in his book.

>>646615

>my particularly apostolic church's interpretation is straight from the Apostles – not through thousands of ecclesiasts that followed much less through some mere book – which makes it the purest form, rather than all you heretics and half-breeds

>>646612

This.

>if you could fly and breath sphagetti instead of air would you-

Always a waste of time.

>>646612

>dismissing things because they're theoretical

>>646713

>absurd comparison

Can you two at least try to process what I wrote?