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.
Good Morning MrS and MercyGate,
🙂

I have much to do (as I am the mother of many little children) so I will just briefly thank you (MrS) for sorting so carefully through my words and showing me the way of the church. I appreciate your gracious reply and understanding so much!

MercyGate,
If you only KNEW the way the Holy Spirit has been lighting fires in my heart! 😃

(That grin looks too mischievous to stand as the appropriate symbol, but I don’t have time to search for something better now.)

I seriously have only love and compassion for the Catholics and their church. I hope that you do not question my sincerity of heart.

I have grieved much because of the way that so many have turned so far from our Lord (including my former self). But the Spirit has placed in me a desire for total understanding, that I might better share what I have learned thus far…and that I might find and help others find the fullness of Him.

Thanks again for joining me in this journey.
God is so good and gracious and loving and kind…
And I feel privileged to know Him as I do.

Have a blessed day!
Your Friend In Christ,
D.
 
40.png
Doreen:
MercyGate,
If you only KNEW the way the Holy Spirit has been lighting fires in my heart! 😃

(That grin looks too mischievous to stand as the appropriate symbol, but I don’t have time to search for something better now.)

D.
Click to expand...
how about:

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_20v.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_10.gif or even: http://smileys.smileycentral.com/ca.../smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_3_22.gif
 
40.png
Doreen:
MercyGate,
If you only KNEW the way the Holy Spirit has been lighting fires in my heart! 😃

. . . But the Spirit has placed in me a desire for total understanding, that I might better share what I have learned thus far…and that I might find and help others find the fullness of Him.
Click to expand...
Get ready! As it says in the Book of Proverbs: The fire never says: enough!
 
When I was finding my way back, with God’s grace, a Franciscan priest friend answered my question of “… where is my burning bush… I feel like I need a really visible sign that God is with me…”

His answer was that “you are your own burning bush… don’t let the zeal or the fire go out… pray, for God is always with you”
 
40.png
Doreen:
John 4:34 “My food, is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” Is this symbolic? Or literal?

I think it is obviously symbolic, but who am I?

As I look at all the references to the bread…
Jesus says: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” vs. 29
Hence: God’s Work = Belief
Click to expand...
Yeah - good verse. I know you will think this is silly, but are you aware of the full context of the term “belief” in the NT? It is not simply belief in the usual sense we mean it - it involves behavior as well.

I also read all of your thoughts on the “Bread of Life discourse” and they were very good. It appears, however, that you have fallen into the “either/or” mindset again. You seem to assume that the interpretation is **either **“symbolic” or “literal”. Why is it not both/and? That is the Catholic understanding: there is both a literal and a symbolic truth to the Bread of Life discourse. You have done a fine job of demonstrating where symbolic implications seem best, but you have ignored the difficult passages which do not gel with the “symbolic only” interpretation. If the "symbolic only iterpretation is true, then some of those difficulties include:
  • Why did Christ use non-symbolic language(Truly, Truly… Amen, amen)?
  • Why did His disciples misunderstand him as speaking literally?
  • Why did Christ not correct their misunderstanding (as he did at least two other times in Scripture) Wouldnt he be guilty of misleading them?
  • Why did the early Church unanimously hold a literal interpretation of those verses(BTW - these are the very same people who’s word we trusted to give us the NT canon of Scripture)
  • Also, in the culture of the time, and through to the present the term “eat the flesh and drink the blood”, when taken symbolically, is a highly derogatory insult to that person. It renders the whole discourse to nonsense: “He who ‘insults/dishonors me’ will have eternal life…”
Also, thank you for the compliments!

Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
. If the "symbolic only iterpretation is true, then some of those difficulties include:
  • Why did Christ use non-symbolic language(Truly, Truly… Amen, amen)?
  • Why did His disciples misunderstand him as speaking literally?
  • Why did Christ not correct their misunderstanding (as he did at least two other times in Scripture) Wouldnt he be guilty of misleading them?
  • Why did the early Church unanimously hold a literal interpretation of those verses(BTW - these are the very same people who’s word we trusted to give us the NT canon of Scripture)
  • Also, in the culture of the time, and through to the present the term “eat the flesh and drink the blood”, when taken symbolically, is a highly derogatory insult to that person. It renders the whole discourse to nonsense: “He who ‘insults/dishonors me’ will have eternal life…”
Phil
Click to expand...
:bigyikes: how could anyone NOT be Catholic… or at the very least harbor deep feelings to want to become Catholic.??
 
are you aware of the full context of the term “belief” in the NT? It is not simply belief in the usual sense we mean it - it involves behavior as well.
Click to expand...
I do agree that “belief” = obedience. If we believe all He says, than we have to know Him as the Shepherd/King…and so that implies obedience. I didn’t know it was part of the actual meaning of the term…but I love the idea that it is. (Really would love to know Hebrew and Greek and have the original transcripts, wouldn’t you??? :))
I also read all of your thoughts on the “Bread of Life discourse” and they were very good.
Click to expand...
Gee, thanks. I was praying the whole time that I wouldn’t mislead or over-extend any ideas.
It appears, however, that you have fallen into the “either/or” mindset again.
Click to expand...
Good point. Hadn’t considered it. Thanks for the red flag!
You seem to assume that the interpretation is **either **“symbolic” or “literal”. Why is it not both/and? That is the Catholic understanding: there is both a literal and a symbolic truth to the Bread of Life discourse.
Click to expand...
Okay, so then I am stepping into a whole new (old) paradigm…or mind set. This is not a bad thing. I’m open to other perspectives…in order to find the truth.

I’ll continue in the next post…too many words again. :o
D.
 
You have done a fine job of demonstrating where symbolic implications seem best, but you have ignored the difficult passages which do not gel with the “symbolic only” interpretation. If the "symbolic only iterpretation is true, then some of those difficulties include:
Click to expand...
  • Why did Christ use non-symbolic language(Truly, Truly… Amen, amen)?
  • Why did His disciples misunderstand him as speaking literally?
  • Why did Christ not correct their misunderstanding (as he did at least two other times in Scripture) Wouldnt he be guilty of misleading them?
    In other situations, discussions, lectures by Christ to them…he would say things like “Why are you so dense”…or something to that effect…and he’d SOMETIMES explain things…but not always. So I guess I was assuming this is all part of what the Counselor was going to straighten out for them.
  • Why did the early Church unanimously hold a literal interpretation of those verses(BTW - these are the very same people who’s word we trusted to give us the NT canon of Scripture)
Click to expand...
Refresh me on this…when do they express literal interpretation. If you are going to site a Catholic writing…then I’m going to feel lost again, because I don’t feel informed enough about who all these early Catholic folks were. I understand Peter to have been the “first Priest”…not even sure if that’s correct…so I have some history to cover before I can comprehend and adopt that stuff.

The whole magisterium thing eludes me. Since I have no place in the Bible to relate to it.
  • Also, in the culture of the time, and through to the present the term “eat the flesh and drink the blood”, when taken symbolically, is a highly derogatory insult to that person. It renders the whole discourse to nonsense: “He who ‘insults/dishonors me’ will have eternal life…”
Click to expand...
I assume here, you meant to say “…will NOT have eternal life.” And here’s my understanding and thoughts about the quote “eat the flesh and drink the blood:” Maybe the term “symbolic” isn’t really fitting to the experience of the act of the “supper”…for lack of a more non-demoninational term… I DO feel that a spiritual, supernatural thing happens when the church (believers in Christ) gather together and partake together. I was in tears last Sunday in doing just that. I hold “communion” with Christ so very dear, and as such a great privilege, that it brings me to tears. But the act of taking the bread and wine isn’t what I look to for full communion. I see Him wanting to simply meet with me in a quiet place —as often as possible—and I don’t understand why He’d come to save us in and of Himself, by His blood, giving Himself up, and then He’d still require me to depend on another person’s faith (a priest) to sanctify bread and wine and go through all kinds of ceremony like this in order to allow me to draw near to Him.

Can’t you see how wonderful our walk can be when it IS just us and Him? I mean, this is something so precious…the fact that I don’t need to go anywhere, dress up fancy, battle the crowds, but simply to find a quiet place in the early parts of the day to fellowship with Him?

This is what Jesus did, after all. Jesus didn’t go to the temple to pray…ever! He went away from the house, to a quiet place…every time!

I feel like I’ve strayed from the topic…sorry. The point is: (and I think we agree on this—though we look at it a little differently) You say: to look at this as symbolic is an offense and it is even sinful…I totally agree! To look at “our communion” with the Lord as some symbolic act IS nonsense…if it isn’t a true abiding, it’s simply meaningless.

We are agreeing in essence, but because you see communion as coming from a ceremonial rite of passage, which can only be partaken of within the confines of “the Church”… and I see it as “making ourselves daily living sacrifices” by submitting our hearts and minds to Him, searching His Word, and worshiping Him with praise, thanksgiving and just pouring ourselves out that He would fill us up daily.

So now, you must give me some strong evidence as to how my independent acts of sacrifice in communing with Christ are in error … and that there’s truth to the need for Mass/Eucharist, etc.

And I’m wondering how we got off the topic…although in a way, we are “normal Joe’s” trying to sort out the truth in Scripture, aren’t we? 🙂

I’m enjoying this dialogue and it’s healthy to be challenged like this. Thanks for the time you’re putting into it!

<><
D.
 
We are agreeing in essence, but because you see communion as coming from a ceremonial rite of passage, which can only be partaken of within the confines of “the Church”… and I see it as “making ourselves daily living sacrifices” by submitting our hearts and minds to Him, searching His Word, and worshiping Him with praise, thanksgiving and just pouring ourselves out that He would fill us up daily.
Click to expand...
The teacher in me can’t leave this fragmented sentence out there without trying to finish it…

Because we agree in essence, but disagree in the process, we can wonder if one of us is missing out on the fullness of the truth.

D.
 
MrS said:
:bigyikes: how could anyone NOT be Catholic… or at the very least harbor deep feelings to want to become Catholic.??
Click to expand...

MrS — you make me smile.

I have to tell you I grew up very proud of my “good Catholic heritage”…but the fact that:
  1. it didn’t keep me from spiraling into some very bad places, (which you can argue happens to all of us at some point)
    2)I didn’t learn about God’s character as one full of Grace…but as one who was keeping score…
  2. it kept me from finding peace because I was not given the understanding I needed to overcome my sin
I feel the church failed me miserably. (I know, you can say, well you must have been a thick-headed fool. You’re probably right. But I know a lot of others are running around out there, still getting pounded by the guilt and shame of their corrupt lives, and they grew up in the church, too.)

I don’t know how change happens in an institution as grand as the RCC…but my prayer is that more folks (like some of you who clearly have come to know Christ through the RCC) will be bold in their testimony and draw others to their salvation through Christ.

Thanks for the succinct exclamation of your fervent love of the RCC. It’s devotion like that which will make others take notice.

Kudos!
D.
 
40.png
Doreen:
The whole magisterium thing eludes me. Since I have no place in the Bible to relate to it.
Click to expand...
Hey, Doreen! You get bonus points for spelling “Magisterium” correctly – except for the capital “M” which you couldn’t be held responsible for since, as you say, – the concept is foreign to you. (Drives me NUTS when Catholics spell it magesterium/majustereom what-have-you. Don’t try to tell me about anything you can’t spell. Know what I mean? 😛 )

The Magisterium, or teaching office of the Church, is all over the place, but I will highlight only Matthew 28:16-20, in the passage known as “The Great Commission.” (Oh. You’re Protestant: you *know *that. Sorry.)

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. . . . And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

I bolded key words. Only the eleven were told to go to the mountain. Most people read the Great Commission as if it applies in full to all of us. It certainly applies to all of us to some extent, since we all share in the mission of the Church, but it is **only **to the eleven that the primary commission is delivered.

They are to make disciples – how can they do that without the authentic witness? They are to baptize, but how can they baptize until they have first preached in the power of the Spirit for conversion (no conflict here with infant baptism, but that’s another whole discussion)? And they are to teach what Jesus has commanded them. Jesus then promises to be with them always: with the 11.

The authentic teaching (which we call the Magisterium)** lies in communion with the eleven.** The authentic teaching lies with the Apostles and their successors. Where a teaching deviates from the Apostolic faith, it deviates from Jesus who is ‘with them always.’

It’s this kind of scriptural reading (reading what the book ACTUALLY says, and not what I had ASSUMED that it said) that blammed me upside the knot and eventually hog-tied and dragged me into the Church (kicking and screaming every inch of the way).
 
The Magesterium is shown in Acts chapter 15. The entire council is an example of the Magesterium in action. It is the first council of the Church.
 
You are right! My bad. Just a poor way of putting it. What I meant is that “abiding” in Christ is what will bring full satisfaction.

But that is the whole point: an analogy to bread simply doesnt convey the concept of full satisfaction. I know what you meant, but its illogical to claim that an analogy to bread is somehow conveying “full satisfaction” in Christ. That is simply NOT analogous to bread. right?

Agreed. Seems there might be a question as to what early texts are trustworthy.

This is pretty weak when you come right down to it. There is a plethora of early Church doctrine from a variety of sources which support the literal interpretation of John 6. In addition, any claim of questionable “trustworthy”-ness is a direct attack on the trustworthiness of the canon of Scripture that we inherited from these same men, no?

I agree that there’s danger in trying to ascertain pieces without reading the message in its entirity (sp?) And I know from my experience, until I was fully submitted to the Authority of Christ, I had serioius trouble comprehending it. The Spirit that convicted me of my sin also gave me the grace to understand more. That may sound odd, but it’s just how I feel I experienced some discernment.

No its not odd. The only part that doesnt quite fit together yet is how you determine that you have definitively reached the valid endpoint of your understanding, and how it is possible that someone else using precisely the same method arrives at a different endpoint.

Will you be shocked when I confess that I left the Catholic church because I felt just the opposite?

No - thats the standard reason for leaving: feelings. Shocking would have been that you studied history and theology and came to embrace another Christian theology.

I felt that it was missing out on the greatest truth of all. The truth of Grace.

You are mistaken if you think the Catholic Faith misses this point - but I dont blame you for being mistaken - then.

The truth that we all sin and that we cannot overcome sin without a simple trust in Christ as our Savior. I feel cheated because I was never told that all this confessing was only useful if I could come to give up my will and ask God to replace it with His own. I do not once recall ever being told that the Holy Spirit of God could indwell in me and that I might become a new creation in Christ.

What have you read? The Catechism?

Maybe it’s my fault for not understanding, but in the evangelical church, this message came across to me loud and clear, and it was NEWS to me!

Would it shock you to know that the evangelical church is largely responsible for my deeper appreciation of Catholicism? When I was confronted with challenges to my faith I investigated and found the Truth of Catholicism to be most consistent with the Truth of Scripture. Lots of other problems with Catholics and the operations of people within the Church, but the Catholic faith remains totally sound.
 
No Jesus is not wrong I questioned your interprtetation.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit is greater than the apostles. If you say that recieving the Holy Spirit is the non normative mode then you do not believe what Jesus says is true. For even John the baptist told that Jesus would baptise with water and with fire.
Click to expand...
What I said:
Christ said he would be with them always, even to the end of time. Can people recieve the Holy Spirit otherwise? Yep, Peter when he goes to the gentiles and is shown the vision, but it is the only time it happenes, the non normative mode to show Peter what to do and convince him of the worthyness of his vision from God.
Click to expand...
Is this how the Holy Spirit manifests and teaches Himself in Evangelicals, distorting what others say (that would be intentional false witness againt thy neighbor) for gain? It is our right and our duty, according to sacred scripture, to test the spirits. This spirit is lacking.

Jesus did baptise with water and fire. Also you seem to disparage the apostles. May I ask how many of the dead you have raised to life again? You have claimed that Christ is speaking about you, and I have said he was speaking to the apostles, lets let the St. Jude answer our discrepancy with his statement in the middle of said discourse.

22: Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?"

If you say receiving the Holy Spirit how you claim is the normative mode, then you do not believe Gods word as you have already contradicted Christ in John by claiming he is speaking to you and not the apostles. Also was Jesus prayer in John answered by the Father? If you say yes then Jesus has only one visible apostolic church as he asked for in the world, if you say no then Jesus either sinned, didn’t have enough faith to have his prayer answered, or isn’t who he says he is.

Lets see if that happened at pentacost.

3: And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4: And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Tongues of fire, not imaginary ones, distribute and rest, substantive holy flame. The Holy Spirit fills them and they speak. Did you receive a dream from God to send for the See of Peter? Did you recieve and take pictures of the tongues of holy fire resting over you? Please post them. These are signs from God. You have claimed that this is exactly what happens in your church.

However we notice in Acts 10:22-44 that Cornelius receives a dream from God to send for and receive Peter, Peter shows up and preaches, then they receive the Holy Spirit. No holy flame appearing before the Holy Spirit this time. So Jesus promise is fulfilled at pentacost.

However lets see the normative mode that God grants the Holy Spirit to true disciples.

***Acts 8:14: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15: who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16: for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17: Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:5: On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

2 Cor 1:21: But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us; 22: he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.***

Eph 1:13: In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

Heb 6:1: Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2: with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

It appears the textual support from God himself is lacking on your side. Unless you are going to claim those miracles didn’t happen and were only figures of speech, and St. Judes words were written down wrong.

However sinse we have a dispute and there have been much more than 3 witnesses here trying to tell you, all that is left, according to Jesus command, is to take it to the church. Here is the address of [Archbishp Charles Chaput](shepherd@archden.org shepherd@archden.org) and Pope Benedict . All we need do is transfer the link or write up a summary and let them decide.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
SolaChristo:
Your words not mine.
The topic is can an average Joe interpret the bible.
Click to expand...
Umm you brought it up when you asked.

So in other words you can’t answer the questions. Why is it that when confronted with questions that you become uncomfortable with and test, you folks always just shy away, divert, and don’t answer?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Wow! This is BEAUTIFUL! Thank you… for directing me to this example of the “First Counsel of Apostles in the Church”

ACTS 15…

The OP asks the question…can a normal Joe interpret Bible psgs/Scripture:

Hear this:
Verse 8: (Peter is speaking to the apostles about whether the Gentiles need to be circumcised to be be saved.) "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them (Gentiles) by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
Verse 9: “HE MADE NO DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN US AND THEM, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10) Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the nexks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
11) NO! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Now I was told to check this out to get an idea of who the original Magisterium were…and what I got was that these men understood there was no distinction between them and the new Gentile believer…and that it was not right to ADD any ritual to the finished work of Christ.

And if there’s NO distinction between the apostles and the new believers, than I’d say YES, any Joe can interpret Scripture once Joe is a believer.

Hmmm…Gonna have to share this with the folks on the thread about the Eucharist! I am learning so much!
D.
 
The authentic teaching (which we call the Magisterium) lies in communion with the eleven. The authentic teaching lies with the Apostles and their successors. Where a teaching deviates from the Apostolic faith, it deviates from Jesus who is ‘with them always.’
Click to expand...
MercyGate:
I should probably start a new thread where you, Phil, MrS and I can hash out these other questions…like when did this whole Mass thing start, since I see the Apostles walking down by the river to find a place of prayer. I’m still wondering, too, when the first Mass took place where the Eucharist was present and was transfigured.

Can you direct me to the FIRST OFFICIAL GUIDE FOR DUMMIES on all this? I’m assuming it’s not in the Catechism.
:banghead:
Thanks, Friend.
D.
 
40.png
Nicene:
Umm you brought it up when you asked.

So in other words you can’t answer the questions. Why is it that when confronted with questions that you become uncomfortable with and test, you folks always just shy away, divert, and don’t answer?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Click to expand...
Stop it!

I have answered your questions and you continue to distort my answeres.
The Holy Spirit is greater than the apostles. Is not God greater than man, This does not disparge the apostles it gives proper due to one of the three persons of God. The apostles were mighty men of God however Jesus gave each of us a promise that promise is that once He left then the Holy Spirit would be sent. I value and cheirsh this “gift of God” so you can ridicule me all you want but it will not shake my faith nor will it change the work of Christ.

Im out —through with this thread, Ive said my peace but in no way fear you or your questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top