How do you interpret passages the Bible?

[NotWorthy]

I am in the camp that believes that the followers of Jesus, baffled by all the (possibly grief driven) “appearances” after the crucifixion (and by the crucifixion itself), searched through the Hebrew scriptures until they were able to figure out “what must have happpened.” Once they figured it out, it became part of their worship rituals and readings, and eventually made its way into the gospel renditions.

A not too dissimilar thing would be the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke which also seem to hjave been added well after the fact, probably because “it made sense” to have such a beginning to such a significant life.

OK, you’re making this up, aren’t you?

Why in the world would they make this up simply because “it made sense”? That doesn’t make sense.

 

[billwjb]

OK, you’re making this up, aren’t you?

Why in the world would they make this up simply because “it made sense”? That doesn’t make sense.

Actually, no, I am NOT making this up.I am merely paraphrasing and otherwise restatiing the opinion of a number of scripture scholars. I will be glad to take credit or blame for the ultimate conclusions in my posts, but the ideas were formed by reading contemporary experts.

The picture of the disciples painted even in the gospels is of a band of followers who generally failed to understand the master. Again, if I am right, the followers were devastated by the crucifixion, and they did not have the new testament to turn to for answers.There is every chance that they stayed in hiding for weeks, being frightened by dreams of jesus (which they would have considered appearances)… After a suitable period of mourning, they began to study their hebrew scriptures, looking for prophecies that would help them make sense of what happened.The prophecies they found may well have greatly influenced the stories So, in a sense, “according to the scriptures” could take on a special role in the resurrection and post-resurrection stories’

Of course this might not make sense to anyone who takes all scripture literally, like news stories filed by the equivalent of the Reuters News Service. Frankly, I think the scriptures become much more exciting when treated with a “what if” approach.The literal approach is a house of cards, in my opinion. sure there is risk associated with a non-literal approach, but there is risk associated with most aspects of life, no?

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually, no, I am NOT making this up.I am merely paraphrasing and otherwise restatiing the opinion of a number of scripture scholars. I will be glad to take credit or blame for the ultimate conclusions in my posts, but the ideas were formed by reading contemporary experts.

I would have serious doubts that you and I would list the same people as “contemporary experts”. Again, this smacks of the Jesus Seminar.

The picture of the disciples painted even in the gospels is of a band of followers who generally failed to understand the master. Again, if I am right, the followers were devastated by the crucifixion, and they did not have the new testament to turn to for answers.There is every chance that they stayed in hiding for weeks, being frightened by dreams of jesus (which they would have considered appearances)… After a suitable period of mourning, they began to study their hebrew scriptures, looking for prophecies that would help them make sense of what happened.The prophecies they found may well have greatly influenced the stories So, in a sense, “according to the scriptures” could take on a special role in the resurrection and post-resurrection stories’

So these same guys who misunderstood Jesus (admittedly true, but this was before they received the Holy Spirit), then read the Scriptures to “make up” what happened, then they went out and died for this new Truth that they invented?

That makes less sense than what really happened!

Of course this might not make sense to anyone who takes all scripture literally, like news stories filed by the equivalent of the Reuters News Service. Frankly, I think the scriptures become much more exciting when treated with a “what if” approach.The literal approach is a house of cards, in my opinion. sure there is risk associated with a non-literal approach, but there is risk associated with most aspects of life, no?

I wasn’t aware that I read the Scriptures for “excitement”.

I still wish you would change your listing to something other than “Catholic”. It’s really misleading.

 

[teak421]

If the Bible cannot be take literal then what is the point of it? If you can’t take one story within it as literal, then why should you take the idea of a god literal? Like previously mentioned, other books such as Lord of the Rings also presents us with the same or similar ideological concepts as the bible. So what is the difference?

Consider reading the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, its EXCELLENT. Helped me a lot!

goo.gl/kn8J

• Michael

 

[billwjb]

I would have serious doubts that you and I would list the same people as “contemporary experts”. Again, this smacks of the Jesus Seminar.

So these same guys who misunderstood Jesus (admittedly true, but this was before they received the Holy Spirit), then read the Scriptures to “make up” what happened, then they went out and died for this new Truth that they invented?

That makes less sense than what really happened!

I wasn’t aware that I read the Scriptures for “excitement”.

I still wish you would change your listing to something other than “Catholic”. It’s really misleading.

What a rude dude. Why do you insist on deriding and ridiculing my posts? I did not say they made up anything, nor did I say they invented a new truth. I did say that they were baffled by events, and that they turned to the hebrew scriptures for insight or answers as to what happened and what it meant. At some point, one of them had an Aha moment, and understoof what must have happened. 'the resulting information, filtered through several decades of oral revision, makes its way down to you and me as the gospel stories of the resurrection and ascension.

As for my Catholic listing, back off. I happen to believe that there is a lot more involved in being a Catholic Christian than a lock-step rote and literal interpretation of the gospel stories.

 

[NotWorthy]

What a rude dude. Why do you insist on deriding and ridiculing my posts? I did not say they made up anything, nor did I say they invented a new truth. I did say that they were baffled by events, and that they turned to the hebrew scriptures for insight or answers as to what happened and what it meant. At some point, one of them had an Aha moment, and understoof what must have happened. 'the resulting information, filtered through several decades of oral revision, makes its way down to you and me as the gospel stories of the resurrection and ascension.

I’m only saying what EVERYONE else is thinking, brother.

Regarding this “Aha moment”, I don’t know of too many people who are willing to die witnessing to something that they didn’t see and they know that nobody else saw. If you know the New Testament, you will realize that Jesus was NOT what the Jews were expecting of a Messiah. So, according to your (IL-)logic, the Apostles had to have made everything up, for they didn’t get it out of tradition or what was then current thinking.

As for my Catholic listing, back off. I happen to believe that there is a lot more involved in being a Catholic Christian than a lock-step rote and literal interpretation of the gospel stories.

Hey, this is an opinion forum. I gave you my opinion - I wish you would change your Catholic title - simply because I don’t want someone to come onto this forum and think that all Catholic believe what you are teaching. I think its very misleading on your part… but hey, that’s just my opinion.

I happen to believe that there is a lot more involved in being a Catholic Christian than a lock-step rote and literal interpretation of the gospel stories.

Yeah, evidently, being Catholic is making up your own rules.

 

[scottm]

So, according to [billwjb’s] (IL-)logic, the Apostles had to have made everything up, for they didn’t get it out of tradition or what was then current thinking.

Nor did they get it from Jesus, billwjb said, because Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead. Jesus didn’t really appear to them. Billwjb said that the Apostles’ only dreamed that they saw a risen Jesus.

That is a HUGELY important point. On the topic again of how to interpret the Bible –

I would have serious doubts that [billwjb] and I would list the same people as “contemporary experts”. Again, this smacks of the Jesus Seminar.

Indeed, the common denominator between the “Jesus Seminar” people and what billwjb is promoting and what his prefered authors’ are promoting, is the (cough) bigotted (cough) assertion that Jesus wasn’t God. Remember that Jesus did not rise from the dead. In fact, God cannot be known. Nobody knows God. Nobody has met him. Nobody has been touched by the Holy Spirit. There is no actual Holy Spirit. That is the underlying assumption of the Jesus Seminar, and billwjb’s positions, and all those authors he likes.

The inability to know God is the assumption they bring to the Bible and literature and Hindu scriptures and ancient Hopi or Navajo stories and so on: it’s all just sterile pieces of paper (or papyrus or whatever) with no life behind it. Nothing written therein actually happened. Horses didn’t actually come out of the sky, like in the Native American legends. There aren’t actually any four-armed women, like in the Hindu stories. Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead bodily. Peter Pan didn’t actually fly because there aren’t actually any fairies. Peter Pan isn’t even real. They read all religious texts the way they read Peter Pan and chemistry texts: unless and until you put it in a beaker and shake it up and witness the color change, it’s not true. Nobody has raised a dead body to life, see. Therefore, Jesus did not rise from the dead. Nobody has bottled the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit isn’t real.

Billwjd and his preferred authors cannot accept the claims in the Bible at face value because they cannot distinguish the Christian God from Zeus and Thor and Hopi deities and four-armed Hindu deities. If they allow Jesus to rise from the dead, as written in the New Testament, then they think, wrongly, that they have to allow all the stories from all the other religions. And they can’t do that, because they’re pretty sure that Zeus and Thor and Tinker Bell and the four-armed Kali aren’t real.

So they are forced by their own preconceived ideas to reinterpret the Bible in a way that denies a living God.

To someone who has actually met God, and actually been touched by the Holy Spirit, the assertions that billwjb and company make are frivolous gobblygook. The assertions are exceedingly, painfully immature. Very immature. It’s not “scholarship.” It’s preconceived biases dressed up in masks.

To someone who has actually met and been touched by the Holy Spirit, the only intelligent and viable interpretation of the four Gospels is that Jesus rose from the dead. To someone who has actually met and been touched by the Holy Spirit, the only intelligent and viable origin of Christianity is a literal reading of the Gospels and Acts. To someone who has actually met and been touched by the Holy Spirit, the classical four-tiered interpretation of the Bible makes sense.

But people who have actually met and been touched by the Holy Spirit do not exist in billwjb’s world or the Jesus Seminar’s world even though we have approx. 2000 years of continuous subsequent history of people all over the planet literally meeting God. The post-Bible-era experiences are the “chemistry beaker” verifications of the Bible stories, but they are ignored by the other side.

That’s really, really sad.

billwjb:

As for my Catholic listing, back off. I happen to believe that there is a lot more involved in being a Catholic Christian than a lock-step rote and literal interpretation of the gospel stories.

You’re ignoring the issue yet again. It’s dishonest to wear the label of a group and while publicly denouncing its core teachings over and over and over again. That is, as a matter of fact, what you are doing.

 

[billwjb]

I’m only saying what EVERYONE else is thinking, brother.

Regarding this “Aha moment”, I don’t know of too many people who are willing to die witnessing to something that they didn’t see and they know that nobody else saw. If you know the New Testament, you will realize that Jesus was NOT what the Jews were expecting of a Messiah. So, according to your (IL-)logic, the Apostles had to have made everything up, for they didn’t get it out of tradition or what was then current thinking.

Hey, this is an opinion forum. I gave you my opinion - I wish you would change your Catholic title - simply because I don’t want someone to come onto this forum and think that all Catholic believe what you are teaching. I think its very misleading on your part… but hey, that’s just my opinion.

Yeah, evidently, being Catholic is making up your own rules.

You gave me your opinion, and I accepted it as such. On the other hand, I give you my opinion and you aggressively distort and ridicule what I say as well as who I am I am surprised to learn from you that I am closely affiliated with the Jesus Seminar, which is an organization of academics that I have never had anythiing to do with. When I explained the mystical cultural context for the appearances to the disciples (as dreams), you immediately lose the mystical culture context and shove a “yeah, they just dreamed it” at me, even though the scriptures have several instances of angels appearing in dreams bearing messages.

And Scottm seems to be sailing out of control with his accusations. Of special interest is his conclusion that there is no Holy Spirit in my thinking. The Holy Spirit was spoken of in Jewish circles well before Jesus, and, according to trinitarian thinking, is a separate person of the trinity. I don’t think the spirit’s existence is dependent on a bodily resurrection of Jesus.

What is clear to me is that you are unable to have an actual discussion with me on this subject. Evidently it hits too close to home and violates your comfort zone to the point where the best you can do is totally misinterpret what I say and bury me in accusations. It really is too bad that the risen Jesus did not appear to any of the pharisees, or common townspeople, or any of the local political leaders (jewish or roman). To the best of our knowledge, he only appeared to his closest followers, who were most likely to be in a grief state at the time. And then he left the planet so soon after rising, too. What was the rush there? One cynical possibility is that the disciples were under increasing pressure to “produce” the risen Jesus for their followers, a pressure that would be relieved if he was officially gone.

 

[NotWorthy]

You gave me your opinion, and I accepted it as such. On the other hand, I give you my opinion and you aggressively distort and ridicule what I say as well as who I am I am surprised to learn from you that I am closely affiliated with the Jesus Seminar, which is an organization of academics that I have never had anythiing to do with. When I explained the mystical cultural context for the appearances to the disciples (as dreams), you immediately lose the mystical culture context and shove a “yeah, they just dreamed it” at me, even though the scriptures have several instances of angels appearing in dreams bearing messages.

OK, Bill, quit hiding behind the victim canard. How many people are willing to make up a story and then individually die for that made up story (insert your own interpretation of how the Apostles came up with this fabricated story here). What makes you think the Apostles, after all the key-stone-cops antics they did while Jesus was alive, were all of a sudden willing to die for a story that “came in a dream” or whatever.

And yes, I gave you my opinion, but I gave you an opinion that is in harmony with 2000 years of Church Teaching.

And Scottm seems to be sailing out of control with his accusations. Of special interest is his conclusion that there is no Holy Spirit in my thinking. The Holy Spirit was spoken of in Jewish circles well before Jesus, and, according to trinitarian thinking, is a separate person of the trinity. I don’t think the spirit’s existence is dependent on a bodily resurrection of Jesus.

The Holy Spirit “goes where He Wills…” that is true. But Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to His Church. I’m not going to go any further into your issue with Scott.

What is clear to me is that you are unable to have an actual discussion with me on this subject. Evidently it hits too close to home and violates your comfort zone to the point where the best you can do is totally misinterpret what I say and bury me in accusations. It really is too bad that the risen Jesus did not appear to any of the pharisees, or common townspeople, or any of the local political leaders (jewish or roman). To the best of our knowledge, he only appeared to his closest followers, who were most likely to be in a grief state at the time. And then he left the planet so soon after rising, too. What was the rush there? One cynical possibility is that the disciples were under increasing pressure to “produce” the risen Jesus for their followers, a pressure that would be relieved if he was officially gone.

And Bill, that is simply a Non-Catholic cynical hypothesis from someone who claims to be Catholic. You are trying to shove a round peg into a square hole and then cry “Foul” when people call you on it. It would be like saying, “I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative, but I’m going to vote for Obama because he’s for taxing the rich and giving to the poor”. That is an oxymoron and so is your claim.

And, no, you are not hitting “too close to home”. That is still laughable.

 

[billwjb]

OK, Bill, quit hiding behind the victim canard. How many people are willing to make up a story and then individually die for that made up story (insert your own interpretation of how the Apostles came up with this fabricated story here). What makes you think the Apostles, after all the key-stone-cops antics they did while Jesus was alive, were all of a sudden willing to die for a story that “came in a dream” or whatever.

Summing up: I have presented ideas over the past few weeks whiich have bothered me over a lifetime. I explained how it would be possible and plausible for the disciples to be technically incorrect about what happened, but yet able to believe fervently in their visions, dreams,and appearances, and yes, to the point of dying for their “truth.”

Apparently, dying for one’s faith, whether that faith is true or not, is fairly common these days, among islamic extremists at least.

Whether my scenario interrupts anyone’s faith in Jesus or not, is probably an individual thing. Obviously, it has not altered your own faith at all, nor mine, for that matter, although I’ll grant that my faith is not based on literal takes on scripture.

So, thank you for listening and also for the interaction you provided. Unless someone at your end can say something that will move the ball, I’ll be signing off.

 

[NotWorthy]

Summing up: I have presented ideas over the past few weeks whiich have bothered me over a lifetime. I explained how it would be possible and plausible for the disciples to be technically incorrect about what happened, but yet able to believe fervently in their visions, dreams,and appearances, and yes, to the point of dying for their “truth.”

Apparently, dying for one’s faith, whether that faith is true or not, is fairly common these days, among islamic extremists at least.

Whether my scenario interrupts anyone’s faith in Jesus or not, is probably an individual thing. Obviously, it has not altered your own faith at all, nor mine, for that matter, although I’ll grant that my faith is not based on literal takes on scripture.

So, thank you for listening and also for the interaction you provided. Unless someone at your end can say something that will move the ball, I’ll be signing off.

When you look at Islamic Extremists, they die for many reasons - hate being the number one thing. In other words, their death brings a greater destruction to the enemy than their own deaths.

I wouldn’t put that on the same category as someone who has been isolated from any external pressure to die for their faith (as the numerous homocide bombers are) and on their own recognizance die believing in what they did.

Its an insult to put islamic suicide’s in the same category.

 

[scottm]

Summing up: I have presented ideas over the past few weeks whiich have bothered me over a lifetime. I explained how it would be possible and plausible for the disciples to be technically incorrect about what happened, but yet able to believe fervently in their visions, dreams,and appearances, and yes, to the point of dying for their “truth.”

It’s not plausible.

You’re still ignoring the issue, and this on purpose. What you gave was a straight-up absolute literal exact denial of the resurrection of Jesus. That is equivalent in every way to denying Christianity. It’s 1 Cor 15 and the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed.

That would be fine if you weren’t advertising yourself as a Catholic. Call yourself a Moslem or a Buddhist or an agnostic or whatever, and there’d be no problem. But, advertising yourself as a Catholic while denying the most basic part of the Christian religion makes you a liar.

There it is.

 

[bluelake]

It depends what the issue is. if it is difficult for you to understand I would ask your pastor for help.
A good study Bible will help too…

God bless,
bluelake

 

[NotWorthy]

Summing up: I have presented ideas over the past few weeks whiich have bothered me over a lifetime. I explained how it would be possible and plausible for the disciples to be technically incorrect about what happened, but yet able to believe fervently in their visions, dreams,and appearances, and yes, to the point of dying for their “truth.”

Apparently, dying for one’s faith, whether that faith is true or not, is fairly common these days, among islamic extremists at least.

Whether my scenario interrupts anyone’s faith in Jesus or not, is probably an individual thing. Obviously, it has not altered your own faith at all, nor mine, for that matter, although I’ll grant that my faith is not based on literal takes on scripture.

So, thank you for listening and also for the interaction you provided. Unless someone at your end can say something that will move the ball, I’ll be signing off.

Brother, If you’re still following this thread, I couldn’t help but think of you as I was reading today’s 1st Reading at Mass.

Reading 1 1 Cor 15:12-20
Brothers and sisters:
If Christ is preached as raised from the dead,
how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? (This is what you are trying to do, Bill) ***
If there is no resurrection of the dead,
then neither has Christ been raised.
And if Christ has not been raised, then empty too is our preaching; (Bill, do you begin to see why you are catching so much resistance from us?)
*** empty, too, your faith.
Then we are also false witnesses to God,
because we testified against God that he raised Christ,
whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised.
For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised,
and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; (This is exactly what we’ve been trying to point out to you, Bill)***
you are still in your sins.
Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
If for this life only we have hoped in Christ,
we are the most pitiable people of all***. (Paul leaves absolutely no wiggle room. That’s why you’ve been allowed no wiggle room)****
But now Christ has been raised from the dead,
the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

 

[billwjb]

It’s not plausible.

Of course not – for anyone who takes the gospels lilterally. But I don’t take them literally, and it is more than plausible to me.

IYou’re still ignoring the issue, and this on purpose. What you gave was a straight-up absolute literal exact denial of the resurrection of Jesus. That is equivalent in every way to denying Christianity. It’s 1 Cor 15 and the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed.

Yes, well, I don’t see my position the way you see my position. I really dont think that there are any two people (going all the way back to St. Paul) who have exactly the same image of Jesus in their heads, and therefore I can accept that you have a rigid and literal faith picture that you are working from. And yet you can’t accept the notion that my position works for me.

IThat would be fine if you weren’t advertising yourself as a Catholic. Call yourself a Moslem or a Buddhist or an agnostic or whatever, and there’d be no problem. But, advertising yourself as a Catholic while denying the most basic part of the Christian religion makes you a liar.

And so the anger escalates to name calling. Somehow, I don’t think Jesus would approve of your need to accuse and blame. It appears that you haven’t really understood any of my ideas, because the fact that I am not basing my faith on a literal interpretation/understanding is beyond you right now. I don’t see anything I can do about that except try to be tolerant of your approach while standing my ground as a contemporary Catholic. I am not a liar.Question: How does a literal christian explain the two totally different geneologies of Jesus presented in Matthew and in Luke? Wouldn’t one of them have to be somewhat incorrect?

IThere it is.

Yes indeed, there it is.

 

[billwjb]

Brother, If you’re still following this thread, I couldn’t help but think of you as I was reading today’s 1st Reading at Mass.

Reading 1 1 Cor 15:12-20
Brothers and sisters:
If Christ is preached as raised from the dead,
how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? (This is what you are trying to do, Bill)
If there is no resurrection of the dead,
then neither has Christ been raised.
And if Christ has not been raised, then empty too is our preaching; (Bill, do you begin to see why you are catching so much resistance from us?)
empty, too, your faith.
Then we are also false witnesses to God,
because we testified against God that he raised Christ,
whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised.
For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised,
and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; (This is exactly what we’ve been trying to point out to you, Bill)
you are still in your sins.
Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
If for this life only we have hoped in Christ,
we are the most pitiable people of all. (Paul leaves absolutely no wiggle room. That’s why you’ve been allowed no wiggle room)
But now Christ has been raised from the dead,
the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep

Thanks for this. It is always nice to be in someone’s thoughts.
Paul came on the scene a few years after Jesus ad left the planet, but his writing, especially here, is a testimony to the faith that the earliest Christians had in the physical resurrection. I am well aware that the earliest Christians believed this literally, to a person, and that my ideas need to be considered outside the context of literal interpretations of scripture.

 

[PJM]

=sinnerdexter;7019757]If the Bible cannot be take literal then what is the point of it? If you can’t take one story within it as literal, then why should you take the idea of a god literal? Like previously mentioned, other books such as Lord of the Rings also presents us with the same or similar ideological concepts as the bible. So what is the difference?

My dear friend in Christ,

It is both humble and prudent to understand that we are unable to know in entirety the mind and will of God.

Isa.55 1.[8] “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.”

The inability of most [if not all] Protestants to accept the Literal and Clear aspects of God’s Inspired Words, most especially in reguard to ONLY His intended single Faith and single Church lies at the foundation of your queries.

Mt. 16: 15 He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I singular] tell you, you are Peter, singular] and on this rock singular] I will build my singular] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [singular] 19 I God singular] will give you [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you singular] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."

It is a FACT that the NT has in excess of 100 references to ONLY One Church: Here is One of them:

**Eph. 4: 4-6 **“There is one body One Church] and one Spirit, ONLY One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, [One God] one faith, One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all."

The Bible at times is very much a mystery in it’s true message, which is precisely why God set it up and guides proper understanding to the One and ONLY Chruch /Faith he founded and intends even to this day.

1Tim.3: 15 “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, SINGULAR] which is the church [SINGULAR] of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” SINGULAR]

Friends it is the unwillingness to accept God at His Own Words, that He guides ONLY His Catholic Church [the ONLY Christian Church in existence when the bible was written, complied and codified by Christ CC.

**Only about His CC does God mke this commitment:

**John 14:16 **"And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever

And ONLY to and fo HIS CC dos Christ Offer Himself to insure the SINGULAR] TRUTH of the CC Teachings:

John.17 Verses 14 to 19

“I [Jesus] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.”

Your dificulty friend is self-reliance, not Godly reliance

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[bluelake]

First, Read the passage. The Holy Spirit will do the rest if you ask .

bluelake

 

[Tuno]

That is a wonderful observation, Bluelake. Isn’t it astounding how many various interpretations the Holy Spirit has sanctioned?

 

[teak421]

Of course not – for anyone who takes the gospels lilterally. But I don’t take them literally, and it is more than plausible to me.

Yes, well, I don’t see my position the way you see my position. I really dont think that there are any two people (going all the way back to St. Paul) who have exactly the same image of Jesus in their heads, and therefore I can accept that you have a rigid and literal faith picture that you are working from. And yet you can’t accept the notion that my position works for me.

And so the anger escalates to name calling. Somehow, I don’t think Jesus would approve of your need to accuse and blame. It appears that you haven’t really understood any of my ideas, because the fact that I am not basing my faith on a literal interpretation/understanding is beyond you right now. I don’t see anything I can do about that except try to be tolerant of your approach while standing my ground as a contemporary Catholic. I am not a liar.Question: How does a literal christian explain the two totally different geneologies of Jesus presented in Matthew and in Luke? Wouldn’t one of them have to be somewhat incorrect?

Yes indeed, there it is.

Does your opinion square with what the Church teaches? Have you reviewed the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation to see what it says? How about the CCC? How does your view compare to it?

• Michael