G
grannymh
Guest
Maybe you should ask the medical profession about what is offensive to them.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Please read Isaiah.
G
grannymh
Guest
Technically, demons are spirits and do not have knees and tongues. Technically, they already chose not to bend to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and not to praise God. They freely chose to leave the presence of God. No kneeling and singing for them. Technically, they can still tempt us to sin.
I would suggest that you reread the Gospel of Mark to get a better idea of the total
mission of Christ. A rereading of Moses in the desert would also be very helpful.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Hi, Granny. I hope that you are doing well.
“** Technically, demons are spirits and do not have knees and tongues. Technically, they already chose not to bend to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and not to praise God. They freely chose to leave the presence of God. No kneeling and singing for them. Technically, they can still tempt us to sin**.”
“** Technically, demons are spirits and do not have knees and tongues. Technically, they already chose not to bend to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and not to praise God. They freely chose to leave the presence of God. No kneeling and singing for them. Technically, they can still tempt us to sin**.”
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
I accidentally posted just the above without analysis, granny. I’ll get back to your material, later, in detail.
D
DebChris
Guest
Only by the power of the Holy Spirit can a person say “Jesus Christ is Lord.”
We know from the NT that demons acknowledged Christ for who He was from the miracle stories in which they were expelled often cursing God.
It has been years since I read Weeds Among the Wheat.What is coming to mind from that book is the idea that demons can be in a church saying “Amen.” That is more an effort to distract a person from doing something that he may need to do (ie acts of charity). How long would a demon stay in a church if everybody in there is praising God, if they are listening not to the demon who has entered but to Christ whom we worship?
I am not a person who looks for deep symbolism when I read literature. That does not mean that I fail to see it, whether or not it was intended by the author. The Bronze Bow is a Newbery Award winner. A fifth grader reading the book will only see the olive trees as symbols of peace if it is brought to the attention of the students by the teacher…
Whatever we read, we read based on our own background knowledge. The writers of the OT wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We now read the OT from our own familiarity of the NT. Our understanding of the NT is enhanced by our understanding of the OT.
I think I am reading warnings in some of these posts against personal interpretation of scripture. Does the in depth analysis of this particular passage lead to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ and the teachings of the magisterium?
Any weeds (misinterpretations) will show in time and be removed as the personal relationship develops in light of readings of the Bible as a whole.
We know from the NT that demons acknowledged Christ for who He was from the miracle stories in which they were expelled often cursing God.
It has been years since I read Weeds Among the Wheat.What is coming to mind from that book is the idea that demons can be in a church saying “Amen.” That is more an effort to distract a person from doing something that he may need to do (ie acts of charity). How long would a demon stay in a church if everybody in there is praising God, if they are listening not to the demon who has entered but to Christ whom we worship?
I am not a person who looks for deep symbolism when I read literature. That does not mean that I fail to see it, whether or not it was intended by the author. The Bronze Bow is a Newbery Award winner. A fifth grader reading the book will only see the olive trees as symbols of peace if it is brought to the attention of the students by the teacher…
Whatever we read, we read based on our own background knowledge. The writers of the OT wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We now read the OT from our own familiarity of the NT. Our understanding of the NT is enhanced by our understanding of the OT.
I think I am reading warnings in some of these posts against personal interpretation of scripture. Does the in depth analysis of this particular passage lead to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ and the teachings of the magisterium?
Any weeds (misinterpretations) will show in time and be removed as the personal relationship develops in light of readings of the Bible as a whole.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
agreed
J
juliamajor
Guest
Don’t assume that since I don’t agree with YOUR view of typology that i don’t see typology at all.That’s just ridiculous. Typology is a great tool to understand the theology of the Bible- but like any tool it can be abused.What YOU say is foreshadowing , is often, to me, a simulacrum of authentic typology.
G
grannymh
Guest
Amen
This is an excellent post which covers a lot of points.
Demons can take on different forms, but they definitely don’t praise God. I can understand your example of demons distracting someone in Church. Though, I confess I don’t need demons to be distracted.
How long? Two seconds at the most. The best weapon to defend ourselves against evil is the close relationship to Christ, especially during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
This is why I like to listen to homilies on Scripture or read meditations about the Gospels. I learn from others.
Yes.
You are reading “warnings” here and on other threads. May I explain what I, personally, think these “warnings” mean and do not mean.
First of all, the warnings are not against reading Scripture. Nor do they mean that when one is prayerfully reading a passage, one should avoid being inspired. Not only do we bring our own background knowledge to our interpretation of Scripture, we also bring our daily troubles and, just as important, our daily blessings. We all have had the experience of receiving a new insight from a Scripture passage. The way to discern an insight is to test it against the teachings of Jesus and His Catholic Church. When in doubt, one should check Bible footnotes or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
Second, the warnings want people to be careful when they, as individuals, read Scripture. Basically, don’t go overboard with a pet theme, method, or objective which sometimes can get one off track from the real message of Scripture. Don’t isolate a particular verse from the rest of Scripture. Be careful when trying to fit individual passages into one’s own personal view, unless, of course, that view is the same as Church teaching.
This is a very good question. Especially the reference to the magisterium.
At times, I have seen a concern that gross “misinterpretations” on a thread will give the wrong impression of Scripture to readers – readers who may be interested in the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Blessings,
granny
All human beings are worthy of profound respect.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Hi, juliamajor.
Down below you also comment, “Reading symbolism into every line in the bible not only undermines the integrity of the OT but is reading into scripture that which is not there.Never agood idea. You could start to read anything into it if you wish- a dangerous thing.”
One of the psychological “games people play” in this website, and in other websites like it, is that they build-up their own self esteem in various ways. For example, they look something up, on line, and acquire knowledge about a subject for the first time in their lives, and then they post this new information with words about the completely new knowledge written in a way which make them look like a complete genius: “Oh course you know that…”
One of the other “games people play” is that they recharacterize the other person’s position with extremist language, and then criticize the extremism, inferring that the other person is an idiot.
So, up above you write, "Reading symbolism into every line in the bible not only undermines the integrity of the OT but is reading into scripture that which is not there.Never agood idea. You could start to read anything into it if you wish- a dangerous thing. "
That’s probably what you were doing, there.
Nonetheless, typology in the Bible is a massive, ordered presence – a system running clear through the Old Testament into the New Testament. The core value of the Old Testament lies in its typology. Once the typology is ignored, you really have gutted the Old Testament.
The undue caution exhibited by your language in those sentences – “Reading symbolism into every line in the bible not only undermines the integrity of the OT but is reading into scripture that which is not there.Never agood idea. You could start to read anything into it if you wish- a dangerous thing.” – seems to imply that you do not have an awareness of the system, but rather seem to view typology as a mere “characteristic” of the Old Testament.
If you approach typology with an open mind, I will take the time and trouble to tell you what I know.
Than you will be better equipped to judge observations about it.
P
PJM
Guest
Friend, while you point is valid, it glosses over the major theme given, and gives no recogination to a very thought provoking post.
I do not find it necessary to disect every post, though their is merit in doing so. This obviously is a pious and practicing Catholic.
It took a GREAT DEAL of time, effort and thought to reach the conclusions reached, even if they were of somewhat dubious merit. I was aplauding the effort, more than the results, and I hold firm to appreciation of the effort.
Today is the feast day of St. Barnabus “son of encouragement”] which seems to me is too a Christian duty.
Love and prayers friend,
J
juliamajor
Guest
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
You total missed the point of 2 Corinthians 5:21
from the Douay-Rheims
21 Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.
21 “Sin for us”… That is, to be a sin offering, a victim for sin.
from the Haydock Bible Commentary
Ver. 21. Him (Christ) who knew no sin, (who had never sinned, nor was capable of sinning) he (God) hath made [4] sin for us. I had translated, with some French translators, he hath made a sacrifice for sin, as it is expounded by St. Augustine and many others, and grounded upon the authority of the Scriptures, in which the sacrifices for sins are divers times called sins, as Osee iv. 8. and in several places in Leviticus, by the Hebrew word Chattat, which signifies a sin, and is translated a victim for sin. But as this is not the only interpretation, and that my design is always a literal translation of the text, not a paraphrase, upon second thoughts I judged it better to follow the very words of the Greek, as well as of the Latin text. For besides the exposition already mentioned, others expound these words, him he hath made sin for us, to signify that he made Christ like unto sinners, a mortal man, with the similitude of sin. Others that he made he reputed a sinner; with the wicked was he reputed; (Mark xv. 28.) God having laid upon him all our iniquities. (Isaias liii. 6.) — That we might be made the justice of God in him; that is, that we might be justified and sanctified by God’s sanctifying grace, and the justice we receive from him. (Witham) — Sin for us. That is, to be a sin-offering, a victim for sin. (Challoner)
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Psalm 148 from the Haydock Bible Commentary
haydock1859.tripod.com/id873.html
examine this from the Haydock Bible Commentary for 2 chapter of Jonas
Ver. 1. Fish. Hebrew dag: afterwards daga occurs, ver. 2; (Haydock) on which Leusden observes, the Jews infer that Jonas was first swallowed up by male and then by a female fish, which being full of young he was much straitened, and prayed from the belly of that (hadaga) female fish! He alludes to Rabbi Jarchi. (Haydock) — Thus nar, puer, is put for a girl, to imply that Rebecca was prudent and Dina rambling. (Buxt. Tib. 13.) See Kennicott, Dis. 2., p. 417 and 552. — Noble discoveries! Many suppose (Haydock) that this fish was a whale, as it does not live on flesh; (Calmet) but its throat being so narrow, as hardly to suffer a man’s arm to pass, it is more probable that it was the sea-dog, lamia or canis chariarias, (Bartolin 14.) which may easily contain a man. (Aldrovandus iii. 32.) (Menochius) — This sea-dog, or shark, has five rows of teeth in each jaw. Human bodies have been found entire in the stomach. (Button.) — Our Saviour calls the fish a whale, Matthew xii. 40. (Worthington) — But that term is given to any great sea monster. Yet it is not of much importance what species of fish be meant, provided the miracle be admitted. (Calmet) — The pagans ridiculed it. (St. Augustine, ep. 102. q. 6. 30.) — Yet they believed many of a similar nature, alleging the omnipotence of God. (St… Jerome) — This reason accounts for all the miracles recorded in Scripture. But might not God have chosen some easier expedient? We must not dive into his reasons. The impression which such a fact would make on the Ninivites, and the prefiguring of Christ’s burial, might suffice. Jonas was not a type of his death, as some have imagined, Q. ad Orthodox. (Calmet) — Nights, or as long as our Saviour was in the monument, (Menochius) which was about thirty-four hours. (Calmet, Dis.)
Philippians 2:10-11
10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.
Ver. 10. If we shew respect when the name of our sovereign is mentioned, may we not express our respect also at the name of Jesus; and if to his name, why not to his cross as well as to the throne of the king?
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
You are trying to open scripture into private interpretation :tsktsk:
G
grannymh
Guest
On a previous thread, the poster has shared the length of time and the effort he spent in reaching his conclusions. He has also posted a number of appropriately pious posts regarding his belief system. It was clear in your post that you appreciated the effort “even if they were of somewhat dubious merit” as you said above.
However, I am concerned that gross “misinterpretations” of Scripture on a thread will give the wrong impression of Scripture to readers – readers who may be interested in the teachings of the Catholic Church. I am not always sure, when there is a strong and effective writer, if readers assume that the post is a personal interpretation. Thus, I will post my personal feelings to thought provoking posts. I am especially sensitive to material involving the Divinity of Christ.
Blessings,
granny
Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Hi, Toby.
Nothing can’t be privately interpreted.
Even Church interpretations of Scripture must be privately interpreted.
Church interpretations of church interpretations must be privately interpreted.
There is no way around the problerm.
Peter
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
You not correct. That is heresy to say it privately interprets scripture They are interpreted by the Holy Spirit.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Hi, Toby.
Please don’t accuse someone of heresy. The anti-Catholics in this site have actually quoted you as an example of how ugly-spirited some of us are. In all things, love.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
If some people can’t handle the truth and that ignorant so be it. The truth hurts and many will not like what I have to say. I speak the truth.
- Status