Are Jesus words to be taken literally or symbolically?

[fbl9]

hi sandusky; re post#36 how could have Jesus Christ,God, lived in the womb of Mary if she were in sin? for sin and God are not compatible.savin grace is the in dwelling of God when we sin saving grace is lost because God can not live in sin.

 

[2ndGen]

Hi folks…I was just wondering;

Are Jesus words to be taken literally or symbolically?

I say that they are always supposed to be taken literally.

Always.

Without exception.

Without “personal” translation.

We are supposed to yield our wills to His words.

Whatever Jesus says we are supposed accept it and not refutiate it or to deny it or to try to explain it away.

 

[SyCarl]

Hi folks…I was just wondering;

Are Jesus words to be taken literally or symbolically?

It obviously depends on what He is saying. When He tells us that we can’t follow Him unless we hate our family that is obvious figurative and not literal. When He says pluck out your eye, that is obviously figurative.

In other cases, as when He is talking about the greatest commandments He is speaking literally.

It depends on the context and subject.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Hi folks…I was just wondering;

Are Jesus words to be taken literally or symbolically?

I say that they are always supposed to be taken literally.

Always.

Without exception.

Without “personal” translation.

We are supposed to yield our wills to His words.

Whatever Jesus says we are supposed accept it and not refutiate it or to deny it or to try to explain it away.

But often Jesus uses an exaggeration, which was a figure of speech common to that culture, such as hating your father and mother to follow Him, or calling no man father, plucking out your eye, etc. His listeners understood but we could take it literally and there would be a lot of one-handed Christians leading the blind ones.

 

[2ndGen]

SyCarl

It obviously depends on what He is saying.

Well, break out the bib and plates, someone’s about to have a buffet!

When He tells us that we can’t follow Him unless we hate our family that is obvious figurative and not literal.

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

I take that literally.

It’s not saying that one “has to” hate their loved ones, but that one must love Christ before all of them and place Him first (especially since He will care for them when He’s calle upon by the same potential disciple).

This is in context to Matthew 10:37
" He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."

(See folks…that’s a prime example of why we need The Magistarium to help us understand Scripture…when in doubt, we can always refer to those God chose to reveal His Word to us…The Catholic Church; that’s where I referred to to understand this seemingly odd scripture).

And it makes sense when taken in context with the whole passage that is discussing the cost of discipleship.

Now, if you don’t believe what the Canonizers of The Bible state this line means, what is “your” interpretation “symbolically” if it’s not literal?

When He says pluck out your eye, that is obviously figurative.

Matthew 18:9
“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.”

Again, yes literally…think about it.

If God came to you and told you to pluck out your own eye and I will guarentee you heaven, would you? I would. In an instant. I’d ask Hiim “Which one!”

Now, again, let’s take that verse in context:

The passage is about stumbling blocks…some could be eyes, hands, feet, beliefs, lack of faith, unability to accept what He teaches completely without watering it down or yielding it to our understanding.

In other cases, as when He is talking about the greatest commandments He is speaking literally.

So then you’d agree that (taken the commandment literally), it’s ok to make idols of fish and of whales and of sharks then right?
Because it says that we are not to make idols of anything in the waters “under” the earth, not of the waters “on” the earth (seas, streams, rivers, etc…)?

This is how The Apostles reconciled the creation of the image of the “Jesus Fish”. It (fish) is not a living or dead creature from the waters “under” the earth.

It depends on the context and subject.

Bingo…only I believe that it’s always literally literal and we are supposed to bend our minds to it’s meaning by the context it is used in when we can’t take the teaching at face value.

Take for example Jesus’ teaching on celibacy. He literally states that some are called to be celibate to serve God for their whole lives.

Matthew 19:
11. He told them, however, "This manifestation does not go down well* for everyone, except for the ones that it applies.*
12. “For there are celibates that were born from their mother’s womb like this, and there are celibates who became celibate from humanity, and there are celibates who became celibate of their own free will,* for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Whoever can do without it, let them be without it.”

Here, Jesus literally says that only those called to celibacy are able to understand the teaching.

But Protestants cannot accept this teaching…it is too hard for them to understand. But for those called to it, it’s acceptable. God chose them to be His servants (Priests, Nuns, Monks, Laypersons, etc…) and so He graced them.

You remove sexual desire or the desire to procreate from a person and that simplifies their life a whole lot. That leave them able to focus on His work for them.

Of course, these are the persons that Satan works on overtime.

 

[2ndGen]

But often Jesus uses an exaggeration, which was a figure of speech common to that culture, such as hating your father and mother to follow Him, or calling no man father, plucking out your eye, etc. His listeners understood but we could take it literally and there would be a lot of one-handed Christians leading the blind ones.

If one is a devout Christian, then they are faced with a choice.

Either work on curbing the sins that are caused by your eye, or pluck it out.
What will people want and need more?
The sin?
Or the eye?

Without they eye, they can’t enjoy the sin anyway so this saying forces them to work on curbing the sin until it cause them to not sin anymore in that way.

Yielding to Christ’s words literally forces us to yield our understanding to His teaching.

It’s “Intellecutal Prosration!”

Jesus’ words if taken literally and if adhered to with blind trust and faith open up a completely different manner of thinking. It is the most common sensical manner of thinking the simplest, the easiest way to do things, but it is complicated for us.

Try it…take one of His sayings literally and work your mind and understanding bending it to the words until it all of a sudden pops in your head.

And when in doubt, consult The Church that God chose to reveal His Word to for guidance.

 

[abucs]

I’m sorry to upset some non catholics here, and i should start by acknowledging that many of you are better Christians than myself but …
it seems like some of the diagreements involve the rejection of the sacramental church. And i wonder how much is down to protestant interpretation of the bible and how much is to justify the split in the church.

For example, Luther who started the reformation off, believed in the real presence and apostolic succession and wanted to reform the church.

It seems to me that when you split and start your own church with the intention of reforming the whole church, you keep 99.99% of the teachings.

After a while of seperation, when it appears that the Church will not get back to together you have NO choice but to interpret the ‘keys of the kingdom of David to Peter’ in the symbolic sense otherwise you would have to rejoin the church which admits the wrongness of splitting.

After you reject the CC and apostolic succession then what you are doing is choosing ‘man and God’ above ‘church and God’.

In affect you are rejecting the specialness of the church. This then leads to the inevitable outcome for SOME to reject the sacraments as most sacrements are performed and only made ‘legal’ when done by a priest who has been properly authorised.

So having rejected the authorisation you have to start dropping sacraments. You drop confession and the eucharist because you need a priest for those. So that seems to FORCE you to interpret the bible passages regarding ‘forgiving of sins’ and ‘eating the flesh and blood’ as symbolic.

So i’m just wondering how much of this is sitting down and honestly looking at the texts and how much is that once you find yourself in the position of splitting with the church, a church which would not get back together, you had NO CHOICE but to interpret some things symbolically to justify the split in the first place ?


Another example is for SOME to interpret the ‘whore of Babylon’ and the anti-christ as the RCC and the pope. How much is honest interpretation and how much is to justify the split ?


Respect.

 

[2ndGen]

I’m sorry to upset some non catholics here, and i should start by acknowledging that many of you are better Christians than myself but …
it seems like some of the diagreements involve the rejection of the sacramental church. And i wonder how much is down to protestant interpretation of the bible and how much is to justify the split in the church.

For example, Luther who started the reformation off, believed in the real presence and apostolic succession and wanted to reform the church.

It seems to me that when you split and start your own church with the intention of reforming the whole church, you keep 99.99% of the teachings.

After a while of seperation, when it appears that the Church will not get back to together you have NO choice but to interpret the ‘keys of the kingdom of David to Peter’ in the symbolic sense otherwise you would have to rejoin the church which admits the wrongness of splitting.

After you reject the CC and apostolic succession then what you are doing is choosing ‘man and God’ above ‘church and God’.

In affect you are rejecting the specialness of the church. This then leads to the inevitable outcome for SOME to reject the sacraments as most sacrements are performed and only made ‘legal’ when done by a priest who has been properly authorised.

So having rejected the authorisation you have to start dropping sacraments. You drop confession and the eucharist because you need a priest for those. So that seems to FORCE you to interpret the bible passages regarding ‘forgiving of sins’ and ‘eating the flesh and blood’ as symbolic.

So i’m just wondering how much of this is sitting down and honestly looking at the texts and how much is that once you find yourself in the position of splitting with the church, a church which would not get back together, you had NO CHOICE but to interpret some things symbolically to justify the split in the first place ?


Another example is for SOME to interpret the ‘whore of Babylon’ and the anti-christ as the RCC and the pope. How much is honest interpretation and how much is to justify the split ?


Respect.

 

[sandusky]

‘Changes’ in the sense of ‘adding to’, ‘clarifying’ and ‘developing’ rather than ‘contradicting’ the gospels.

Requiring that the Marian doctrines must be believed in order to maintain a right standing with God is adding to the gospel, and it is legalism, in its purest sense—requiring God’s people to believe what He, Himself, does not require they believe.

abucs:

And we are defining the gospels as written gospels there but the ‘good news’ to be preached by the apostles was mainly verbal as they set out from Jerusalem.

Your assertion is that the Gospel that the apostles preached, is different from, or, changed when it was written down; the burden of proof is yours to establish that as a fact; you haven’t done that.

abucs:

As John says, there are many other things not written down which are part of tradition, and as Jesus said to his Church - ‘the spirit will lead you into all truth’, but yes, you are still valid in asking ‘where the teaching came from’.

In his Gospel, John writes that what was written, was written “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that all that is needed for attaining to “eternal life in Christ’s name,” can be found in that which has been written down.

 

[sandusky]

fbl9:

hi sandusky; re post#36 how could have Jesus Christ,God, lived in the womb of Mary if she were in sin?

In the same manner in which God, the Holy Spirit, indwells men in whom is present until the time of their death, ***the principle of evil, and sin.*****Romans 7:21-23

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in
my members.**

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

In his Gospel, John writes that what was written, was written “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that all that is needed for attaining to “eternal life in Christ’s name,” can be found in that which has been written down.

“What was written, was written…”

Where does that passage state that the passage is exclusive? It doesn’t. It was written to reinforce oral teachings. Read it again, with an open mind.

 

[abucs]

sandusky,

by that logic, all we would need is the Gospel of John and we could ditch all of the other books.

I think there is a degree of proof that needs to be shown for doctrines. At the time writing was the only long term reliable method. So we would include all correspondence among the church at the earliest times.

But that would also include traditions written down from the first couple of centuries for me.

As Johns gospel said, if they wrote down everything there wouldn’t be enough books to hold it all. Seeing as we take every line to be important, i in no way limit theology to the books the CC decided to include in the bible. I respect their decision and i would look to the politics of the time in the 4th century to see what their purpose was, but i would not limit the teachings to everything that was written down at a snapshot in time and then chosen 3 centuries later.

For example, many of the NT letters were written to address errors in the early church. If there were no errors for a certain accepted tradition, then there would be no reason to write a letter of admonishment or clarification.

But that’s me.

Respect.

 

[sandusky]

“What was written, was written…”

Where does that passage state that the passage is exclusive? It doesn’t. It was written to reinforce oral teachings. Read it again, with an open mind.

If the written scripture reinforces oral teachings, then the oral teachings, and written scripture must be identical; therefore, any notion of oral teaching is better discarded in favor of written scripture.

As Augustine says:You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.

—In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. NPNF Series I, VII:469.​

Notice that Augustine does not say, we ”would have something to read, and, oral tradition.

As far as reading the passage with an open mind, how much more open minded can one be than to take the apostle at his word?

 

[sandusky]

abucs:

sandusky,

by that logic, all we would need is the Gospel of John and we could ditch all of the other books.

It seems to me, that you disagree with the apostle, and that you do not believe what he’s said.

 

[fbl9]

hi sandusky did you leave out some words from those verses you quoted to me. just asking because the way you have it wrote the priciple of evil is the one that wants to do good??i will get back to this later though spent enough time online today thank you for your reply.

 

[2ndGen]

Requiring that the Marian doctrines must be believed in order to maintain a right standing with God is adding to the gospel, and it is legalism, in its purest sense—requiring God’s people to believe what He, Himself, does not require they believe.

Your assertion is that the Gospel that the apostles preached, is different from, or, changed when it was written down; the burden of proof is yours to establish that as a fact; you haven’t done that.

In his Gospel, John writes that what was written, was written “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that all that is needed for attaining to “eternal life in Christ’s name,” can be found in that which has been written down.

Hey Sandusky,

To whom did Jesus give “His” authority to,
to a book that wouldn’t exist for 400 years or to His Church?

 

[holdencaulfield]

How does one discern “when” we are to take Jesus’ words literally or symboliclally?

The best way is context and the crowds reaction.

 

[2ndGen]

The best way is context and the crowds reaction.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Thank You