Tuesday, October 7, 2008
interpretation of the bible
I feel the need to point out that there are different interpretations of what is said in the bible. I'm open to all interpretations and will consider them. But, what the popes back in medieval times derived from verses in the bible I have to strongly disagree with. First off, Jesus said "Upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18-19). If you read the verses surrounding it, I believe the "rock" is not a literal one. It's referring to the rock or foundation of the belief that Jesus is the son of God and all his teachings are based off this. This was not blessing the future popes to build these massive churches. Second, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which is a little further down. He was speaking about his teachings being the keys of heaven here. He was not handing supreme power and ruling to Peter. In fact, unlike what is claimed by those in power that claim to be descended from Peter, he never did appoint a "ruler" of his church. When asked who would be the greatest in Luke 9:46-48, he brought a child among them and told them to be like a child- humble and meek. Do people think Peter was appointed as ruler because Jesus said "feed my lambs and feed my sheep" (John 21: 15-17)? Jesus asked all his disciples to watch over his flock. I was curious about the documents found supporting Peter as the first bishop and Linus as his successor- what documents are referred to here? Even if Jesus had appointed Peter as the first bishop, I bet many of the bishops to follow had no descendant at all from Peter. They merely used that claim to support their rise to power. And that's what it's all about: power. I find it ironic that the city of Rome boasted of having "ancient Christian lineage" when it's their city that persecuted the apostles of Christ and even put several of them to death. When they found out that having this connection could give them more power, then they had a change of heart. Lastly, Peter was never meant to be a ruler. He was sent out homeless and penniless to freely teach the gospel- a far stretch from what the popes after his time and today interpret their place to be. I know this is a sensitive topic and there are many interpretations- just know I will not belittle you or put you down if you comment and I'd love feedback!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Enjoyed your post. I agree that there are many ways to interpret biblical versus, and its always a slippery slope when one person or group argues for one side or another on interpretations. Honestly, I'm personally glad that many felt that Peter was endowed to build Christ's church here on earth, if that did not happen many of the religions that were spawned from this may look entirely different. An example of this are the Lutherans. In terms of building massive churches, I'm glad they built those because many of the impressive buildings that have survived wars, etc are still around. They are still evidence of the history that existed and we continue to learn about today. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed your post. I just think St Peter did have a valuable place in establishing the early church.
I completly agree with what you said and actually wrote by blog on the same topic. I felt like it was possible that those passages were twisted to say what the Roman Catholic church wanted them to say in order to support Papal authority. Yes, Peter did have a significant role in the early church, but I believe Scriptures also gives evidence that Paul,Timothy, Titus etc. also were equally important in establishing the early church.
I have visited many cathedrals in Europe and they are grand indeed. Gold leaf overlay, massive vaulted ceilings and amazing sculptures. Much of the work was commissioned by the Pope or someone working on their behalf. I have been to Vatican City, (which is of course another country-though that seems ridiculous to me) and even heard the current Pope Benedict speak. It was like going to a rock concert, although I must say that he seemed very gracious and sincere. I think that the Pope (past or current) is just a man however, and not infallible. I believe that historical hindsight is mostly 20/20 and the mistakes or intentional manipulations the papacy has made are easily seen. Peter being the first Bishop? Never seen that in scripture, but he did seem to have a special place in Jesus' heart. I'm sure that all the apostles did for one reason or another, but he was the one who got out of the boat...
On the cathedrals...At times I have shook my head when walking through one of these places, because while it may have partly been intended to glorify God, I can't help but think of the lives (it was very dangerous to build them at the time, with the technology of the day) and money (I am sure the poor and needy could have used the money) it cost to build these massive structures. I think of the people who were driven by fear of damnation or excommunication to give their last bit of money to buy their salvation, when all the church needed more money for was to build another cathedral or two. People are just people and therefore we make mistakes. The more power inherent with a person's position, the more careful that person should be to do the right thing and the more costly their mistakes.
thanks for the comments! Just to reply to a few things... I think the great buildings that have been left behind and all the art in them are fantastic. I just think the intent behind the building was off base and justified by questionable means. Like what was said, a ton of money and lives were sacrificed out of fear of damnation. I've never met the Pope and I probably never will so I would never comment on what kind of man he is. But when you read the new testament, I don't think Jesus ever intended there to be a position of power held by the pope. Just my opinion.
Post a Comment