Can a "normal Joe" interpret Bible passages/scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter malachi_a_serva
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern humphrey:
40.png
1Christ1Church:
How am I making fun of the bible? ]/quote]

You said, and I quote:

40.png
1Christ1Church:
Im making a point that we are not idiots.[/aquote]

And ridiculing the Bible in the process.

Perhaps God wants His word interpreted by people who won’t ridicule it.

Which is why I was shocked that you would take such a tone about a passage from Acts.
I did not ridicule it, just using sarcasm type “tone” showing how mystical those people make the Word of God out to be. Go ahead, say I ridiculed the bible again, it is already written in “Apologetics” that you can never be wrong.
 
As a matter of fact, I find it that those that read Acts 8:26-40(Philipand Ethiopian) and believe that part of scripture is proof you need mans authority to go ahead and teach the good news of Jesus AND not interpret the bible by yourself after you have received the good news from another (Edited for charity)
 
40.png
1Christ1Church:
I did not ridicule it, just using sarcasm type “tone” showing how mystical those people make the Word of God out to be.
You said, and I quote:
**
, thanks Rome!!! Philip recieved the good news of Jesus and gave back to God what God has given him to the Ethiopian! Then the Ethiopian believed the word of God and realized he wanted to be baptized for repentance of his sins. WOW, I wonder if Rome ever sent the Ethiopian his baptism certificate!
**
40.png
1Christ1Church:
Go ahead, say I ridiculed the bible again, it is already written in “Apologetics” that you can never be wrong.
When you start getting personal like this, it is a sure sign you have run out of rational arguments.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
40.png
1Christ1Church:
Listen brother, dont spin this back on me, you are the one who said I ridiculed holy scripture when I didnt, then I went ahead and clarified what I meant.
You said, and I quote:

**

WOW, thanks Rome!!! Philip recieved the good news of Jesus and gave back to God what God has given him to the Ethiopian! Then the Ethiopian believed the word of God and realized he wanted to be baptized for repentance of his sins. WOW, I wonder if Rome ever sent the Ethiopian his baptism certificate!

**
40.png
1Christ1Church:
Nothing personal, peace.

case closed
Actually, you said:
Originally Posted by 1Christ1Church
Go ahead, say I ridiculed the bible again, it is already written in “Apologetics” that you can never be wrong.
If you want to close the case, the gentlemanly way would be to say, “I’m sorry – I let my emotions rule my head.”
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
Is it the position of the Catholic Church that one cannot properly interpret the Bible?
My answer would be how do you define a “normal joe”?

If this “normal joe” has received the good news of our Savior Jesus Christ from another, believes in it without a doubt, gets baptized for repentance of their sins they confess, they belong to the one true church of Jesus Christ. The will be filled with the Holy Spirit that Jesus promises us. And truely living in Jesus’s Spirit, YES, one can read and interpret the bible correctly. Jesus will not lead you to confusion. That is what the church he left us is for, so we can all share in the one true word sent from God.

To those that have spent a lifetime reading 1900+years worth of doctrine that have mixed religion and philosophy with the true word of God will say, “Yeah right, its just that easy, yeah right.”
 
Im sorry, I let my emotions rule my head.

Jesus-“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
 
40.png
1Christ1Church:
If this “normal joe” has received the good news of our Savior Jesus Christ from another, believes in it without a doubt, gets baptized for repentance of their sins they confess, they belong to the one true church of Jesus Christ. The will be filled with the Holy Spirit that Jesus promises us. And truely living in Jesus’s Spirit, YES, one can read and interpret the bible correctly. Jesus will not lead you to confusion.
Well, that is a pretty good description of me. I’ve received the Good News, believe it without doubt, have been baptized, et cetera. Presumably so have you.

So now let’s test your theory. Please interpret this passage:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

If your theory is correct, your interpretation should match mine very nearly perfectly.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
1Christ1Church:
My answer would be how do you define a “normal joe”?

If this “normal joe” has received the good news of our Savior Jesus Christ from another, believes in it without a doubt, gets baptized for repentance of their sins they confess, they belong to the one true church of Jesus Christ. The will be filled with the Holy Spirit that Jesus promises us. And truely living in Jesus’s Spirit, YES, one can read and interpret the bible correctly. Jesus will not lead you to confusion. That is what the church he left us is for, so we can all share in the one true word sent from God.
Which leaves us scratching our heads and wondering how, in less that 500 years Protestantism has split, fragmented and re-split into thousands of denominations.
 
40.png
1Christ1Church:
Im sorry, I let my emotions rule my head.

Jesus-“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
Thank you, sir. Spoken like a gentleman and a Christian.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Well, that is a pretty good description of me. I’ve received the Good News, believe it without doubt, have been baptized, et cetera. Presumably so have you.

So now let’s test your theory. Please interpret this passage:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

If your theory is correct, your interpretation should match mine very nearly perfectly.

– Mark L. Chance.
Sure, you dont mind if I add to on to the portion of scripture you presented here, do you? After all, we must take care to present the whole teaching Jesus gives us here. Lets extend John6:53-56 to John6:53-65

Lets look at line especially at line 63-“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.”

Spiritally, if you partake in the remberence what he did at the last supper, you eat and drink his blood, spiritually. You eat, nash in your mouth, his body and drink his blood to remember what he did at the cross.

Our Lord and Savior’s crucifixtion and resurrection is one and done.

He now sits at the right hand of the Father. Not in a tabernacle
 
40.png
1Christ1Church:
Sure, you dont mind if I add to on to the portion of scripture you presented here, do you? After all, we must take care to present the whole teaching Jesus gives us here. Lets extend John6:53-56 to John6:53-65

Lets look at line especially at line 63-"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life. Spiritally, if you partake in the remberence what he did at the last supper, you eat and drink his blood, spiritually. You literally eat, nash in your mouth, his body and drink his blood to remember what he did at the cross.

Our Lord and Savior’s crucifixtion and resurrection is one and done.

He now sits at the right hand of the Father. Not in a tabernacle
OK, now you have presented an interpretation directly opposed to what Catholics and Orthodox now teach, and have always taught. So what does that say about your theory regarding the ability to interpret scripture?

Oh, and we Catholics believe that Christ’s flesh, far from counting for nothing, counted for everything.
 
40.png
VociMike:
OK, now you have presented an interpretaion directly opposed to what Catholics and Orthodox now teach, and have always taught. So what does that say about your theory regarding the ability to interpret scripture?
It can only mean some combination of at most two of these three things:
  1. His theory regarding the ability to interpret Scripture is wrong;
  2. He is not actually a Christian; or
  3. Anyone who has an interpretation different from his is not actually a Christian.
In every single case, his theory regarding the ability to interpret Scripture remains, at best, extremely suspect.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
VociMike:
OK, now you have presented an interpretation directly opposed to what Catholics and Orthodox now teach, and have always taught. So what does that say about your theory regarding the ability to interpret scripture?

Oh, and we Catholics believe that Christ’s flesh, far from counting for nothing, counted for everything.
Jesus taught me what I know, and only him. Jesus taught everyone who listened, but there are those that put him in a box and believe it.
 
40.png
1Christ1Church:
Jesus taught me what I know, and only him. Jesus taught everyone who listened, but there are those that put him in a box and believe it.
But Jesus has also taught me what I know. Why did he teach you something that contradicts what he taught me?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
It can only mean some combination of at most two of these three things:
  1. His theory
– Mark L. Chance.
If truth is a theory, than that is my theory. How can you believe we could lock up Jesus in a box for instant Jesus and also put him in a device so we can physically be next to him. He will come back to Earth the same way he left. Why cant we all understand this?!?!?!?
 
40.png
1Christ1Church:
If truth is a theory, than that is my theory. How can you believe we could lock up Jesus in a box for instant Jesus and also put him in a device so we can physically be next to him. He will come back to Earth the same way he left. Why cant we all understand this?!?!?!?
You didn’t answer my question. Jesus taught me what I know. Why did he teach you something that contradicts what he taught me?

Based on your theory (which is not self-evidently true and thus must be demonstrated), the only possible answer I can see is that one of us isn’t really a Christian?

Are you saying I’m not really a Christian?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
1Christ1Church:
Sure, you dont mind if I add to on to the portion of scripture you presented here, do you? After all, we must take care to present the whole teaching Jesus gives us here. Lets extend John6:53-56 to John6:53-65

Lets look at line especially at line 63-“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.”

Spiritally, if you partake in the remberence what he did at the last supper, you eat and drink his blood, spiritually. You eat, nash in your mouth, his body and drink his blood to remember what he did at the cross.

Our Lord and Savior’s crucifixtion and resurrection is one and done.

He now sits at the right hand of the Father. Not in a tabernacle
That would be incorrect. Christ is telling them fleshly understanding means nothing, he who understands what he just said understands it spiritually and in truth. Lets examine this from something I wrote a while ago for another person with te same position as yours.

Jn 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” Jesus said to them “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven”

Continuing on with the bread of life discourse Christ says in verse 41: “I am the bread which came down from heaven”

The discourse has two levels, Christ inviting us to his word which is life, and the eating of his living bread in the eucharist. What happens later? Some disciples cannot accept what Christ is saying regarding his flesh, because, like you they are thinking in terms of cannibilism. They are thinking carnally, not spiritually. Obviuosly they don’t have a problem with following his teachings previous to this. So what scares them off? Why do they now think it is a hard saying? Like those who say it is a symbol, they can’t accept the fullness of Christs teaching. Those who think in symbol think it is his mortal flesh he is talking about, and cannot accept what he says, when in fact he is talking about his glorified humanity, as it was after rising from the dead. He says he was the bread that came down from heaven. The Jews have no problem with accepting symbolism. So it must be something more they can’t accept, not mere symbolism. The manna in the desert was perishable food, Jesus is not. He is the bread from heaven that is far greater than the sign in Exodus. Catholics believe and understand both/and. Those who don’t believe think only either /or. Carnally, not spiritually.

Did the bread in the desert come from God or Moses? The bread of life isn’t natural it is supernatural and why it comes from God. The old bread from heaven filled their bellies, the new bread from heaven fills their Spiritual hunger and thirst. That gift, once given is surpassed by the bread that God now gives, the true bread from heaven; Jesus. His new gift comes down and gives life to the world. To further find this teaching we only need to go to Paul in 1 Cor 10: 14-21:

14 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.(Symbols don’t have the effect of participation in Christ)

Can we confirm that Paul is talking about the literal presence of Christ and and a sacrifice and not just a symbol? Yes in the very next verses.

18 Consider the practice of Isreal; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the alter? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do no want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Obviously Paul considers the idols nothing, but does he imply the same weight to the blood and bread of Christ? What he does have a problem with is the sacrifice to idols, as opposed to the sacrifice they eat and drink, which is Christ? What is the big deal if it is only a symbol? Why bless a symbol at all in the previous verses. Also note the unity that it imbues on the believers, transcending symbolism, “many are one body” with participation. Not only is it a community in Spirit with each other and Christ but also a personal relationship with him in acceptance, enhancing that relationship to both.

Cont next post…
 
The last confirmation that this isn’t merely a symbol but supernatural, and that you can link the verses in John, concerning the bread and blood of life and manna (as well as Mt, Mk, and Lk at the last supper). Paul confirms what Christ says:

1 Cor 10 3 and all ate the same supernatual food 4 and all drank the same supernatual drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

The early church fathers speak of it as what they were taught by the apostles, especially Ignatius, disciple of John, given bishopric of Antioc by Peter. If John is unable to teach Ignatius orally, how can we trust what he writes in the Gospel. After all he couldn’t even succeed in passing that teaching on to one disciple, nor Peter, who gives him his office.

Taking a look at the actual greek testament: John 6:54-58

54 o trôgôn mou tên sarka kai pinôn mou to aima echei zôên aiônion kagô anastêsô auton en tê eschatê êmera 55 ê gar sarx mou alêthês estin brôsis kai to aima mou alêthês estin posis 56 o trôgôn mou tên sarka kai pinôn mou to aima en emoi menei kagô en autô 57 kathôs apesteilen me o zôn patêr kagô zô dia ton patera kai o trôgôn me kakeinos zêsei di eme 58 outos estin o artos o ex ouranou katabas ou kathôs ephagon oi pateres kai apethanon o trôgôn touton ton arton zêsei eis ton aiôna

trôgôn=to gnaw, or I gnaw, trôgô=to gnaw or chew
esthio=to eat

esthio is the common term used throughout the New Testament.
trôgôn is used only 5 times in the New testament, 4 of which are in the above verses.

Instead of thinking in english, we must consider who the apostles are speaking and writing to. All of these people understand exactly the difference between these two words, the meaning isn’t lost on them. Nor is it lost on those to whom, in the very next verses, Christ is speaking. Up until this point they have no problem accepting all of Jesus teaching.

Why the sudden shift and why can’t they now accept the teaching? Because, like those of carnal mind, they are thinking he is talking of cannibalism. The Apostles don’t leave, they may not completely understand, but they know he is the Christ, Peter replies when asked “Lord, to whom can we go. We know you have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy one of God”

It definately isn’t a symbol he is speaking of, as the text plainly states, the Jews have no problems with symbols. Just look at Joshua and Gil Gal. If it’s a symbol why do those disciples leave?

To give an idea, a literal rendering of the text is:

54 The one gnawing on me the flesh and drinking of me the blood has life eternal and I will make stand up him in the last day 55 The for flesh of me true is food, and the blood of me true is drink 56 The one gnawing on me the flesh and drinking of me the blood in me stays and I in him. 57 Just as delegated me the living father and I live through the father, also the one gnawing on me also that one will live through me 58 This is the bread the one from heaven having come down, not just as ate the fathers and died; the one gnawing this the bread will live into the age.

Christ is making a definitive statement here and why he chooses those words and not the normal use of the word eat or eat food, but to gnaw on the flesh. The question is, do we believe he is speaking of his body, blood, soul and divinity, or do we believe as the other disciples who left, and cannot accept his teaching.

In Luke Christ walks with two disciples on the road to Emmaus, they ask Jesus to stay with them, they do not recognize him until:

Luke 24:30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. 31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.

Upon recieving the consecrated bread after the blessing they suddenly recognize their Jesus.

Catholics, with the early fathers, as taught by the Apostles and the bible accept the teaching. To deny that in the face of the greek text, understanding as they did, is really to just walk away from the teaching as the other disciples did. If Christ had used “esthio” as He had in the rest of the text it would be harder to see as other than a symbol. However He doesn’t, He changes tone completely and deliberatly.

Cont next post…
 
The first disciples of the Apostles and their successors reaffirm this teaching:

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians 4 110 A.D.

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans 7 110 A.D.

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7,1 110 A.D.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

St. Justin Martyr First Apology 66 155 A.D.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

St. Irenaeus Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis 5:2, 2-3 180 A.D.

So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ’spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.

St. Irenaeus Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis 4:18 4-5 180 A.D.

For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 4,18,5 189 A.D.

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 5,2,2 189 A.D.

He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

cont next post…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top