The crux of organized religion is being so vague that an individual can pick whatever parts of it fits into their own self-image. Thats what OP is tapping into in their quote. The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this.
>>"The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this."
This is provably false.
"It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."[1]
As an example, the New Testament is 25x more accurately copied across manuscripts than the Iliad [2].
"The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."[3]
[1] Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts", p. 23
[2] Bruce M. Metzger, "Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism", cited by Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", pp. 366f
[3] F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" p. 15
I believe he meant that the collective interpretation of mainstream religious leaders changes over time and is radically different from one century to the next.
Exactly. Just look at how the attitude to homosexuality has shifted in the church (which I think is a great thing). They didn’t change the text, but they changed the emphasis and the oral sermons.
That doesn’t hold water either, or Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t still be considered by so many as “the highest expression of both natural reason and speculative theology” and the basis for modern clergical study.
It definitely does hold water. Here are several examples.
Until the Counter-reformation, Catholics were not allowed to lend money at interest due to the ancient prohibition against usury. After that point Catholic doctrine was changed to say that this was one of the commandments for the ancient Jews that was not intended for Christians. The Bible didn't change, but doctrine did. (This despite the fact that the only point in the Bible where Jesus is portrayed as acting angrily was throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. And why was their presence wrong? Because they were engaged in usury!)
The doctrine of papal infallibility is accepted by all Catholics today. Yet it was not part of Catholic doctrine until 1870.
Until 1616, the Catholic Church had no official doctrine on astronomy. In fact Copernicus dedicated his book to the Pope. And then the Copernican theory was ruled contrary to scripture. Catholics were banned from reading various books about it. A century later, the bans on the books were lifted. A century after that, the Catholic Church declared that the Copernican theory was in accord with scripture.
In all of these cases Scripture didn't change. Jesus still threw the moneylenders out of the temple for usury. Peter still received the keys to heaven. And Joshua bid the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth. But the beliefs that people had based on these passages /did/ change.
A minor point, Jesus has anger issues a number of times in the Bible, not just with the moneylenders. As an example, the time he got mad at a tree for not having fruit and cursed it to never bear fruit again.
>As an example, the time he got mad at a tree for not having fruit and cursed it to never bear fruit again.
A tree that was out of season, no less.
And this happens immediately before the verse where he chases out the moneylenders.
And on the way back, they pass the withered fig tree again and one of the disciples points it out and Jesus says "Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them,"
Misc points of doctrine are not really the “collective interpretation” as if fundamentals were changing, and the comment to which I replied said “radically different”.
None of your examples feel like radically different Catholicism, except perhaps the papal infallibility thing, though even that seems it was generally believed, but not categorically, before being written down and today is generally believed, but not categorically, so, not radically different.
