How do you interpret passages the Bible?

[scottm]

The epistles tell us why he was crucified. And the gospels are pretty clear that God was guiding events to make it happen in a particular way.

This is an applicable thread, esp. post #5, on where boundaries are:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=491771

 

[JRKH]

With all due respect, another odd part of the story is that we really don’t learn exactly why Jesus is crucified. If the scripture is to be taken literally, the jewish mob was calling the shots, and Pilate was too weak to stand up for his own impression, so he had Jesus scourged and crucified just to avoid the wrath of the jewish crowds. Somehow the story does not seem consistent with what one might expect from a Roman governor.

I see it quite differently. Pilate had a situation on his hands. A bunch of fired up Locals demanding the death of a (to Pilate) insignificant itinerant preacher. After questioning Jesus, Pilate could see no reason to execute him and told the jews so. This did not placate them - so------
Pilate had a choice to make. Protect Jesus from the Mob by calling out the Roman Guards to disperse the crowds likely killing many, and likely still have to deal with various disturbances later over the same issue - or ------
Execute one man, thus satisfying the crowd and disposing of the situation oonce and for all.
For a Roman Political type like Pilate the answer seems pretty clear.

But even if the jews were calling the shots, they would want Jesus to hang for weeks as an example to his followers, at least.

Well - I’m not sure about this. Perhaps the Jewish leadership DID want him left up there. But they were not the ones who asked to have him taken down. And the one who asked, didn’t ask the Jewish leadership. He asked Pilate.

Peace
James

 

[NotWorthy]

I see it quite differently. Pilate had a situation on his hands. A bunch of fired up Locals demanding the death of a (to Pilate) insignificant itinerant preacher. After questioning Jesus, Pilate could see no reason to execute him and told the jews so. This did not placate them - so------
Pilate had a choice to make. Protect Jesus from the Mob by calling out the Roman Guards to disperse the crowds likely killing many, and likely still have to deal with various disturbances later over the same issue - or ------
Execute one man, thus satisfying the crowd and disposing of the situation oonce and for all.
For a Roman Political type like Pilate the answer seems pretty clear.

I agree. Pilate had no reason to insist that Jesus stay up on the Cross to teach the peasants a lesson. What lesson was there to teach?

Well - I’m not sure about this. Perhaps the Jewish leadership DID want him left up there. But they were not the ones who asked to have him taken down. And the one who asked, didn’t ask the Jewish leadership. He asked Pilate.

Peace
James

… the one who asked, Joseph of Arimethea, **was **a part of the Jewish leadership, being a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

 

[scottm]

Of course it doesn’t make sense. The guy who said it lists “Catholic” as his religion while denying the very creed (Nicene Creed) that was written for the very purpose of defining that religion. There’s a built-in inconsistency.

 

[NotWorthy]

It is nice to see that the spirit of Fr. Torquemada is alive and well!

bill,

You do the math. Is one Catholic because its the Church they were born into? Or is one Catholic because they believe that the Catholic Church was built by Christ and that they teach what Christ taught them to teach?

How can one deny the Nicene Creed and still claim to be Catholic?

One can question all they want, but the statements on this thread have gone far beyond questioning to outright denial.

 

[billwjb]

You do the math. Is one Catholic because its the Church they were born into? Or is one Catholic because they believe that the Catholic Church was built by Christ and that they teach what Christ taught them to teach?

How can one deny the Nicene Creed and still claim to be Catholic?

One can question all they want, but the statements on this thread have gone far beyond questioning to outright denial.

Well, it appears that expressing a few honest speculative thoughts about the situations depicted in the gospel stories gives fodder to those who would take a divisive stand, and judge (and convict) the poster of the accusation of not being a Catholic. How does God’s love fit into such treatment?

Do we really have to check our brains at the church door?

I see the Nicene Creed as a political document, demanded of the council of Nicea in the fourth century by Constantine, who needed a unified position in order to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and his agenda was more political than it was theological. Jesus had been dead for over 300 years, and a variety of positions had been taken around the mediterranean area Constantine got a document that he could back up with his sword, and the church got a particular unified position that it has had ever since.

 

[billwjb]

Some parts of the Bible can only be interpretted literally. Example: if there was no literal Jesus who literally died and literally came back to life, the entire religion of Christianity is FALSE, period, full stop, done deal. That’s not negotiable. There is no alternative.

I don’t think you are necessarily correct here. Granted, we disagree about literal interpretation, but let me explain where I got one of my “crazy” ideas from. I was in a study group and we were discussing the nature of the society that Jesus lived in
Someone observed that it was a mystical society in which dreams held as much import as appearances while awake.

Shortly before this, I had lost my wife to cancer. A few months after her death. my grown daughter and I both, at about the same time, had dreams about her. And they were vivid dreams in which she was very much alive. The dreams persisted for a couple of weeks, and then they stopped. This was several years ago. I couldn’t help but wonder if the disciples might have experienced similar dreams about Jesus as the grieving process went along for them. The idea made sense to me, It was especially significant that the disciples, as members of that mystical society, could claim with integrity that they had seen the risen Jesus. Whether I am right or the literal reading of scripture is right, faith will be faith.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, it appears that expressing a few honest speculative thoughts about the situations depicted in the gospel stories gives fodder to those who would take a divisive stand, and judge (and convict) the poster of the accusation of not being a Catholic. How does God’s love fit into such treatment?

Do we really have to check our brains at the church door?

Good Lord, no, you don’t have to check your brains in at the door. That, in itself, implies that guys like me don’t think.

But, in regards to heretical statements… as I mentioned before, you can have those thoughts and questions. If that wasn’t allowed, these forums would be about as boring as watching my grass grow.

But you’ve gone past that and declared that its obvious that your non-Catholic beliefs are true. It doesn’t matter what the Church teaches, you are right.

And your following statement confirms this.

I see the Nicene Creed as a political document, demanded of the council of Nicea in the fourth century by Constantine, who needed a unified position in order to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and his agenda was more political than it was theological. Jesus had been dead for over 300 years, and a variety of positions had been taken around the mediterranean area Constantine got a document that he could back up with his sword, and the church got a particular unified position that it has had ever since.

And again, you are wrong, my friend. The Nicene Creed is the Teaching of the Church, not something to appease Constantine. And this position in itself is rather simplistic, when you realize that the decision of the Council went AGAINST the beliefs of Constantine and a majority of the Emperors for the next 65 years.

The Emperors of Rome were not exactly Pro-Christian for the next 65 years. In fact, some of the worst empire-wide persecution of Christians occurred after the Council of Nicaea.

 

[scottm]

I was in a study group and we were discussing the nature of the society that Jesus lived in. Someone observed that it was a mystical society in which dreams held as much import as appearances while awake.

That sounds so totally like a “speculation” group, rather than a “study” group. Sure, whatever. And they daydreamed all their construction projects too.

I couldn’t help but wonder if the disciples might have experienced similar dreams about Jesus as the grieving process went along for them. The idea made sense to me, It was especially significant that the disciples, as members of that mystical society, could claim with integrity that they had seen the risen Jesus.

In Christianity they did NOT. That’s as plain as 1 + 1 is 2. **The dogma of the religion of Christianity is very explicit and crystal clear: bodily resurrection witnessed by many people. **

You may believe anything else that you want to believe, but if it’s not bodily resurrection than it’s not the religion of Christianity – full stop. The dogma of the religion leaves no room for argument.

What you’re doing is dishonest. You’re falsely labeling yourself a Catholic, and you’re willy-nilly changing established dogmas recognized all over the planet, as if you own the religion. You should change your profile label from “Catholic” to something not within the umbrella of Christianity.

 

[billwjb]

Good Lord, no, you don’t have to check your brains in at the door. That, in itself, implies that guys like me don’t think.

But, in regards to heretical statements… as I mentioned before, you can have those thoughts and questions. If that wasn’t allowed, these forums would be about as boring as watching my grass grow.

But you’ve gone past that and declared that its obvious that your non-Catholic beliefs are true. It doesn’t matter what the Church teaches, you are right.

I am not claiming to be right. But I am claiming the right to speculate. The church is not always right, as witnesses the plight of Galileo, who happened to be right even though it meant being in opposition to the church. And, in his case, the church admitted its error and apologized to Gallileo less than 400 years after they imprisoned him for his heretical notion that the earth was not the center of the universe. How is that for good sportsmanship?

 

[billwjb]

You may believe anything else that you want to believe, but if it’s not bodily resurrection than it’s not the religion of Christianity – full stop. The dogma of the religion leaves no room for argument.

What you’re doing is dishonest. You’re falsely labeling yourself a Catholic, and you’re willy-nilly changing established dogmas recognized all over the planet, as if you own the religion. You should change your profile label from “Catholic” to something not within the umbrella of Christianity.

Nonsense! Rather than dealing with my speculations directly, you keep wanting to shoot the messenger, and trying even harder to label me as a dishonest non-catholic. Does that mean my speculations might have just a touch of possible truth in them? I do resent the dishonest charge, since I have emphasized honesty in all my posts.

 

[scottm]

Nonsense! Rather than dealing with my speculations directly, you keep wanting to shoot the messenger, and trying even harder to label me as a dishonest non-catholic. Does that mean my speculations might have just a touch of possible truth in them? I do resent the dishonest charge, since I have emphasized honesty in all my posts.

Huh? I directly addressed your denial of the Nicene Creed, specifically the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I’ll say it again just you hear it: To deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus is to deny Christianity. It is an inseparable part of the religion.

And I’ll say this again so that you hear it: Saying, “Sure, I’m a Christian, even though I deny a very basic and essential part of the religion” is open dishonesty – yes it is.

Whether your speculations on the NT have any truth or not is IRRELEVANT to whether you should claim the title of Christian (or Catholic). The honesty issue is NOT whether your speculations are correct, nor how sincere your doubts are. The honesty issue is whether one can lay claim to a title “Christian” (or “Catholic”) while openly rejecting that which is behind it. And you’re doing that.

That you don’t understand speaks volumes.

 

[NotWorthy]

I am not claiming to be right. But I am claiming the right to speculate. The church is not always right, as witnesses the plight of Galileo, who happened to be right even though it meant being in opposition to the church. And, in his case, the church admitted its error and apologized to Gallileo less than 400 years after they imprisoned him for his heretical notion that the earth was not the center of the universe. How is that for good sportsmanship?

I think you may have the facts wrong, there. You might want to study the whole scenario again.

First of all, Galileo didn’t invent his theory. He used a theory developed by a Father Capernicus.

Second, Galileo wasn’t condemned for this theory. He was condemned for using this theory to claim that the Bible is in error.

Third, it was the Science Community that created all the uproar with Galileo findings, not the Church. Scientists often forget that little fact… they’re too busy re-writing history and championing him.

 

[billwjb]

I think you may have the facts wrong, there. You might want to study the whole scenario again.

First of all, Galileo didn’t invent his theory. He used a theory developed by a Father Capernicus.

Second, Galileo wasn’t condemned for this theory. He was condemned for using this theory to claim that the Bible is in error.

Third, it was the Science Community that created all the uproar with Galileo findings, not the Church. Scientists often forget that little fact… they’re too busy re-writing history and championing him.

Your explaining away the Galileo story makes me wonder why the pope bothered to issue a formal apology to Galileo just a few years ago. His (and Copernicus’) findings were in conflict with the worldview expressed in the bible. Galileo didn’t have to claim that the bible was in error, he merely had to stick to his story about the center of the universe to get in deep trouble with the church. As I heard the story, Copernicus developed the “theory” that the earth was not the center of the universe, but he knew and was unwilling to risk the political downside of going public with the news, so he brought it to poor Galileo instead. I am sure there is much more to the story, but the reason for the church to apologize to the long dead Galileo says plenty.

 

[billwjb]

Huh? I directly addressed your denial of the Nicene Creed, specifically the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I’ll say it again just you hear it: To deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus is to deny Christianity. It is an inseparable part of the religion.

And I’ll say this again so that you hear it: Saying, “Sure, I’m a Christian, even though I deny a very basic and essential part of the religion” is open dishonesty – yes it is.

Whether your speculations on the NT have any truth or not is IRRELEVANT to whether you should claim the title of Christian (or Catholic). The honesty issue is NOT whether your speculations are correct, nor how sincere your doubts are. The honesty issue is whether one can lay claim to a title “Christian” (or “Catholic”) while openly rejecting that which is behind it. And you’re doing that.

That you don’t understand speaks volumes.

I agree to disagree with you. I find your accusations, judgements, and rigid tone to be divisive and therefore decidedly un-Christian, regardless of where you stand on dogma issues.

 

[dtg]

Jesus said the Scripture could not be broken. (is truth) It obviously has a variety of literary qualities. Interpretation of it is aided by the Holy Spirit.

---

Scripture IS the intended doctrine, IS the intended statement of faith, IS authoritative, a representation of the true Church, containing the exact Gospel, reveals God’s purpose, testifies about Jesus, and explains the way of salvation. Man’s interpretation of the Scripture can generally only approach its truth. dtg13.com

 

[TimothyH]

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?

sinnerdexter,

What if I were to write, “It was raining cats and dogs” and someone were to read that phrase 2000 years from now, what would they think?

One could look just at the words on the page and take them at their literal word for word meaning. Or one could try to understand what type of writing and would ask if it is poetry, biography, journalism, from a diary or part of a technical manual on how to fix a transmission. One could try to understand somthing of the social, political and economic circumstances under which the author wrote and wold ask whether the person was rich or poor, a slave or free, old or young, educated or not. One could also try to understand the customs and mannerisms of the day and the common figures of speech and would ask if this were a common phrase, where else in printed literature this phrase was used and under what context and how the individual words were used in other phrases.

A literalist interpretation of “It was raining cats and dogs” is that animals were falling from the sky. Other’s, upon looking at the contexts under which the passage was written, might rightly conclude that it was coming down in buckets (sorry, couldn’t resist).

Now, some parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally, like Acts and Kings while other parts are not.

My point is that the Bible was written over a period of thousands of years by many differen authors, each of whome had different backgrounds and wrote with different styles. It is one of the most ancient books known to man, written in ancient languages which have been translated to modern English as best as we know how. It’s not as easy as just taking the bible literally word-for-word. If that were the case, then we should all be plucking our eyes out and chopping off our hands like Jesus told us to do.

Your question illustrates why we need an infallible intepreter and what a great gift it is to have been given a Church which is exactly that.

-Tim-

 

[scottm]

I agree to disagree with you. I find your accusations, judgements, and rigid tone to be divisive and therefore decidedly un-Christian, regardless of where you stand on dogma issues.

Well, can you explain how you, as an individual, are authorized to change the definition of the Catholic religion?

This actually dovetails very nicely with the question of how one can, or should, interpret the Bible.

 

[NotWorthy]

Your explaining away the Galileo story makes me wonder why the pope bothered to issue a formal apology to Galileo just a few years ago. His (and Copernicus’) findings were in conflict with the worldview expressed in the bible. Galileo didn’t have to claim that the bible was in error, he merely had to stick to his story about the center of the universe to get in deep trouble with the church. As I heard the story, Copernicus developed the “theory” that the earth was not the center of the universe, but he knew and was unwilling to risk the political downside of going public with the news, so he brought it to poor Galileo instead. I am sure there is much more to the story, but the reason for the church to apologize to the long dead Galileo says plenty.

The Church apologized for the way they handled the situation, not for disputing with Galileo. Copernicus, as I said, developed the theory and didn’t risk political downside. He published it and just went with it.

Like I said, Galileo got in trouble because he ticked of the Science Community first and it escalated from there. The Church had no problem with the theory, just that he claimed it disproved the Bible, which it didn’t.

 

[billwjb]

The Church apologized for the way they handled the situation, not for disputing with Galileo. Copernicus, as I said, developed the theory and didn’t risk political downside. He published it and just went with it.

Like I said, Galileo got in trouble because he ticked of the Science Community first and it escalated from there. The Church had no problem with the theory, just that he claimed it disproved the Bible, which it didn’t.

I looked up the Galileo story on the web. I found this on the BeliefNet website:
“Since the 1633 trial of Galileo, church relations with the world of science have often been strained. Galileo was put on trial by papal authorities for publishing a book defending Copernicus’s theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Copernicus had died nearly a century before, and his “heliocentric” view of the solar system was already generally accepted by astronomers and even by some theologians. Nevertheless, the Vatican insisted Galileo stop discussing the idea; threatened by the Inquisition with torture, he recanted his views and spent the last nine years of his life under the equivalent of house arrest.”

“In October 1992, Cardinal Paul Poupard presented the Pope with the findings of the Galileo study commission, which declared, “From the Galileo case we can draw a lesson which is applicable today in analogous cases which arise in our times and which may arise in the future. It often happens that, beyond two partial points of view which are in contrast, there exists a wider view of things which embraces both and integrates them.” By Vatican standards, this rotund language was an apology. The Pope responded by saying that Galileo’s realizations about the sun and earth must have been divinely inspired: “Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions.” Through its 1992 ceremony, the church finally lifted its edict of Inquisition against Galileo, who went to his grave a devout Catholic, despite the church’s treatment of him.”

I admit it is a better case when the facts are involved.