You didn’t show anything, you shared your interpretation and claimed that it’s the one “most” Christians believe without any evidence.
More to the point though, your interpretation isn’t even clear - you yourself admitted that the Bible uses difficult prose, suffers from translation issues, and needs to be viewed through a cultural lense calibrated to the times it was written. How is that “clear” at all?
And I did give you an argument. I directly countered your claim that “the Bible is quite clear” by saying nothing in the Bible is clear and giving examples and reasoning for why I believe it isn’t clear. I thought that was quite clear.
You’re mixing things up, maybe because I’m not clear or maybe consciously. It’s probably the first. I hope.
What most Christians believe is that one can be saved without believing, and I proved that citing official Catholic texts. Maybe these texts aren’t true to the Bible, but that is of no consequence, they’re still a proof that most Christians believe what I said. The first question was not “can non-Christian be saved?” it was “do Christians believe that non-Christian can be saved?” and these are two different things.
Now, about the Bible, I did not contradict myself. Let’s take an other text: The Capital by Marx and Engels. It’s not a simple text: to understand it wholly, you must have a strong economical, philosophical and historical culture. It needs time, efforts, and this text is still debated today, as there are different legitimate interpretations. But even without them, you can read it and some things will be clear, for example that capitalism should be fought. A text can be difficult on its parts and clear on the whole on a few subjects.
It’s the case with the Bible. That the Law is not eternal is very clear, so if you see a text that says the contrary it should either be dismissed as a text contradicting the whole message, or interpreted to find the actual message.
You didn’t show anything, you shared your interpretation and claimed that it’s the one “most” Christians believe without any evidence.
More to the point though, your interpretation isn’t even clear - you yourself admitted that the Bible uses difficult prose, suffers from translation issues, and needs to be viewed through a cultural lense calibrated to the times it was written. How is that “clear” at all?
And I did give you an argument. I directly countered your claim that “the Bible is quite clear” by saying nothing in the Bible is clear and giving examples and reasoning for why I believe it isn’t clear. I thought that was quite clear.
You’re mixing things up, maybe because I’m not clear or maybe consciously. It’s probably the first. I hope.
What most Christians believe is that one can be saved without believing, and I proved that citing official Catholic texts. Maybe these texts aren’t true to the Bible, but that is of no consequence, they’re still a proof that most Christians believe what I said. The first question was not “can non-Christian be saved?” it was “do Christians believe that non-Christian can be saved?” and these are two different things.
Now, about the Bible, I did not contradict myself. Let’s take an other text: The Capital by Marx and Engels. It’s not a simple text: to understand it wholly, you must have a strong economical, philosophical and historical culture. It needs time, efforts, and this text is still debated today, as there are different legitimate interpretations. But even without them, you can read it and some things will be clear, for example that capitalism should be fought. A text can be difficult on its parts and clear on the whole on a few subjects.
It’s the case with the Bible. That the Law is not eternal is very clear, so if you see a text that says the contrary it should either be dismissed as a text contradicting the whole message, or interpreted to find the actual message.