Are Jesus words to be taken literally or symbolically?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2ndGen

Guest
How does one discern “when” we are to take Jesus’ words literally or symboliclally?
 
2ndGen said:
How does one discern “when” we are to take Jesus’ words literally or symboliclally?
Click to expand...
Well there are only a few verses people really argue about…those referring to hell and John 6…there are not that many people disagree about
But in those cases I look at the whole chapters and other verses in scripture
 
Rightlydivide said:
Well there are only a few verses people really argue about…those referring to hell and John 6…there are not that many people disagree about
But in those cases I look at the whole chapters and other verses in scripture
Click to expand...
Well, let’s see what happens.

I’d like to see when it’s alright to decide for ourselves that it’s ok to take Jesus literally and when we can take them symbolically.

I mean if it’s symbolically said, then there has to be proof because after all,
The Bible is self-authenticating so there should be proof.
 
When I do my weekly Bible study with my ND friend. I kid him as to how Jesus seems to like to play head games in some of the Gospels. But in all seriousness, if you read them carefully, it’s pretty clear that he tailors his speaking to his audience.

In the case of the parables, obviously he is speaking symbolically.
 
2ndGen said:
Well, let’s see what happens.

I’d like to see when it’s alright to decide for ourselves that it’s ok to take Jesus literally and when we can take them symbolically.

I mean if it’s symbolically said, then there has to be proof because after all,
The Bible is self-authenticating so there should be proof.
Click to expand...
I do not understand what you are saying.
 
In otherwords, if you aren’t sure, refer to the teaching of the Church.
 
Maybe it would be useful to take the advice of Augustine.
  1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
    newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
I do not understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...
Then, you do not have a clue on when to take something literally or figuratively.

That is why so many Protestants (well meaning and good Christians all) confuse us Catholics with their contradictory, infallible interpretations of Scripture.

If you look to the historical interpretation, the Tradition, the one taught by the Church (what we call the Magisterium) you will see that for almost as long as the Church has been around (33 AD) there has been a development of certain teachings (the Trinity for one example, the Immaculate Conception for another) that find support and example in Scripture.

Look at the Prodigal Son parable. It is figurative, it teaches a lesson. And that lesson? You can be saved and die and be saved again. (Those ain’t MY ideas!). Yet. good meaning Protestants ignore this when discussing that old canard: Once Saved, Always Saved.

Of course, the flippant reply is that non-Catholics pretty much pick and choose what fits ‘their’ theology when deciding what is literal and what is symbolic.

But, flippant as it sounds, it usually is true.

Robert
 
Rbt_Southwell said:
Then, you do not have a clue on when to take something literally or figuratively.

I do not agree. I know what I take in what way.
That is why so many Protestants (well meaning and good Christians all) confuse us Catholics with their contradictory, infallible interpretations of Scripture.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
I do not agree. I know what I take in what way.
Click to expand...
Thank you, rightlydivide, you have proven my point.

You do take what sayings you want in your way.

That is what being a Protestant is all about. And for Marcion and Luther (and the JWs and the wierd cultists) it is choosing their own canon and rewriting or deleting phrases and words which are inconvenient.

Robert
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
The Church is not infallible: it is made up of fallible people. Sinful people like me.

The teachings, vis-a-vis Jesus, are infallible.

We have had more (we’ve been one Church longer, bud) bad clerics and ‘believers’ than all the 33,000 + Protestant denominations. but not one, NOT ONE of them has changed the teachings of the Gospel.

That is something you can never disprove.

Robert
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:

If you are truly interested, [and from your postings I honestly doubt it], look to the Catechism. It references Scripture, early Patristic writings, early liturgical texts (like the Didache), and Encyclical and other letters which reference Scripture.

But hey, keep to the Bible, after all, it does say in it that it is the Book on How To Be A Christian, right?

Robert
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
Rbt Southwell;3248022:
Let me try again Robert. The topic is specifically what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken symbolically.
You said this:
Look at the Prodigal Son parable. It is figurative, it teaches a lesson. And that lesson? You can be saved and die and be saved again. (Those ain’t MY ideas!).
Click to expand...
I have asked for the infallible source for this interpretation. Either you have it, or you do not. If you do not, you need to admit it because you are the one giving me a hard time about what is literal and what is symbolic.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
Rbt Southwell;3248022:
I have asked for the infallible source for this interpretation. Either you have it, or you do not. If you do not, you need to admit it because you are the one giving me a hard time about what is literal and what is symbolic.
Click to expand...
Once more, rightlydivide.

I have been taught that, for years, by priests and the Magisterium (countless books on Catholicism). It is one of MANY Scriptural sources putting the lie to that recent (post 1500) OSAS ‘doctrine.’

Of course you don’t believe it. It’s in the Bible.

Robert
Click to expand...
 
Rbt_Southwell said:
Rightlydivide;3248042:
Once more, rightlydivide.

I have been taught that, for years, by priests and the Magisterium (countless books on Catholicism). It is one of MANY Scriptural sources putting the lie to that recent (post 1500) OSAS ‘doctrine.’

Of course you don’t believe it. It’s in the Bible.

Robert
Click to expand...
Is it an infallible interpretation of the prodigal son that it means what you say?
Do you have a reference?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top