How do you interpret passages the Bible?

[billwjb]

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

I am confident that one could look through those documents and find statements that would be in conflict with my ideas. But I would also have to admit to my own double standard. I am in close agreement with most all of the church’s teachingss that are about love, and especially about love in action. On the other hand, I believe Jesus would want people to develop some positions on their own. In other words, I don’t think it is especially healthy to depend on the church to tell me what to think, at least not on those topics where I have actually worked out an opinion of my own. This is especially true in areas like history, science, and theology. Like with Galileo, there are those rare occasions where being told what to think by the church results in a grave injustice. In fact, I gather that most of the violence initiated by the Spanish Inquisition was essentially about people being told what to think. Nevertheless, the older I get, the harder it is to slip into that “sheep” costume.

 

[teak421]

I am confident that one could look through those documents and find statements that would be in conflict with my ideas. But I would also have to admit to my own double standard. I am in close agreement with most all of the church’s teachingss that are about love, and especially about love in action. On the other hand, I believe Jesus would want people to develop some positions on their own. In other words, I don’t think it is especially healthy to depend on the church to tell me what to think, at least not on those topics where I have actually worked out an opinion of my own. This is especially true in areas like history, science, and theology. Like with Galileo, there are those rare occasions where being told what to think by the church results in a grave injustice. In fact, I gather that most of the violence initiated by the Spanish Inquisition was essentially about people being told what to think. Nevertheless, the older I get, the harder it is to slip into that “sheep” costume.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here… Have you read the CCC about forming your own conscience? Its clear that we have free will to determine our own conscience, but it must be well formed.

As far as the Church today and science, when I was a Protestant we took a much harder view of science, etc. The Roman Catholic Church on the other hand is NOT afraid of science at all… heck, they have an astronomer on staff… The Church has grown a LOT in this regard, don’t you think?

• Michael

 

[PJM]

=billwjb;7078952]I am confident that one could look through those documents and find statements that would be in conflict with my ideas. But I would also have to admit to my own double standard. I am in close agreement with most all of the church’s teachingss that are about love, and especially about love in action. On the other hand, I believe Jesus would want people to develop some positions on their own. In other words, I don’t think it is especially healthy to depend on the church to tell me what to think, at least not on those topics where I have actually worked out an opinion of my own. This is especially true in areas like history, science, and theology. Like with Galileo, there are those rare occasions where being told what to think by the church results in a grave injustice. In fact, I gather that most of the violence initiated by the Spanish Inquisition was essentially about people being told what to think. Nevertheless, the older I get, the harder it is to slip into that “sheep” costume.

My dear friend in Christ,

Where this true [IT’S NOT] then why the Commandments, why the Beautitudes, why does Christ tell us five seperate times to :take up our cross and follow Him? Why did Christ give complete [guided by Him …Jn. 14 and John 17] governance to His One Chruch to Peter and the Apostles. [Mt. 15:19 and 18:18]

May I humbly suggest you READ 1 Tim. 3:15!

Christ personal assurance of Total and Complete Truth is restricted to ONLY all matters of Faith and Morals, not science, not history, which are but weighted human opinion.

To make assumptions of personal “rights” based on what is and was ONLY opinions NOT
personally guarentedd by BOTH Crist and the Holy Spirit, leaves one open to a sin of presumption.

**John 14:15-17 **“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.”

John 17:14-19* reguards Faith and Morals ONLY]

“I [Jesus Speaking] 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. **19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.” ***

Friend you certianly have a “right” to your own opinions, but when they oppose [as you are doing] God’s Teaching and Will, your sliding towward Eternal Hell.

Love and payers,
Pat

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 [ONE…SINGULAR] of the living God, the **pillar and bulwark of the truth. ** [SINGULAR].

 

[NotWorthy]

I am confident that one could look through those documents and find statements that would be in conflict with my ideas. But I would also have to admit to my own double standard. I am in close agreement with most all of the church’s teachingss that are about love, and especially about love in action. On the other hand, I believe Jesus would want people to develop some positions on their own. In other words, I don’t think it is especially healthy to depend on the church to tell me what to think, at least not on those topics where I have actually worked out an opinion of my own. This is especially true in areas like history, science, and theology. Like with Galileo, there are those rare occasions where being told what to think by the church results in a grave injustice. In fact, I gather that most of the violence initiated by the Spanish Inquisition was essentially about people being told what to think. Nevertheless, the older I get, the harder it is to slip into that “sheep” costume.

… and yet Jesus often calls us “Sheep”.

Hmmmm…

 

[billwjb]

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here… Have you read the CCC about forming your own conscience? Its clear that we have free will to determine our own conscience, but it must be well formed.

As far as the Church today and science, when I was a Protestant we took a much harder view of science, etc. The Roman Catholic Church on the other hand is NOT afraid of science at all… heck, they have an astronomer on staff… The Church has grown a LOT in this regard, don’t you think?

• Michael

I have read the CCC on formation of conscience, and I believe my conscience is well formed.

The church has come a long way. After all, the vatican did apologize to Galileo in 1992 after more than 300 years of sticking to their incorrect guns about the heliocentrism thing. Still, they do seem to be staying out of trouble in the science realm lately. In my huymble opinion, the area where there may be room for mishandling these days, would be in the area of scripture scholarship. There has been over 200 years of intense study (greatly involving Protestant scholars).

One particular thiing that has me pretty anagry is that the gospels are represented popularly as history and as biography, when the reality is that the gospels are NOT history and not biography, at least not in the sense we think of those things today. I’m not sure there is a simple name for what the gospels are, but they seem to be the distilled (and sometimes embellished) reflections of the communities of followers of Jesus. Representing them as literally true in the face of all the scholarship that says otherwise is, in my opinion, dishonest of the contemporary church.

I’d still like to know how “literalists” explain the two different geneologies presented in Matthew and in Luke.

 

[rcjones]

I’d still like to know how “literalists” explain the two different geneologies presented in Matthew and in Luke.

I’m sorry to pop in here, but things don’t jive. There are honest questions and then there are discussions like this one.

A simple google of “two genealogies of Christ” results in over 2 million hits. Among them there are plenty that address it. Heck even wiki does.

The apparent contradiction of the two gospel genealogies has aroused controversy since ancient times. Although many modern scholars see the genealogies as theological craftsmanship rather than historical fact, several explanations have been suggested. There are early claims that Joseph did in fact have two fathers, in a sense, one being a legal father. Others hold that one of the gospels actually records the genealogy of Mary.[3]

This is not one of the great mysteries.

You really expect us to believe that you are informed enough to claim “my conscience is well formed.” yet you are so ill-informed that you still haven’t discovered the literalist approach to the scriptures.

Yeah right… moving along. Nothing to see here.

 

[billwjb]

I’m sorry to pop in here, but things don’t jive. There are honest questions and then there are discussions like this one.

A simple google of “two genealogies of Christ” results in over 2 million hits. Among them there are plenty that address it. Heck even wiki does.

This is not one of the great mysteries.

You really expect us to believe that you are informed enough to claim “my conscience is well formed.” yet you are so ill-informed that you still haven’t discovered the literalist approach to the scriptures.

Yeah right… moving along. Nothing to see here.

Thanks for sharing one of the 2,000,000 google responses to my question about the two geneologies. However, the response you quote does not reflect a literal approach to scriptures, it indicates theological agendas may have been at work. Anyway, my question was not intended for googling, but for some of the folks on this thread who have been beating me up with their literal interpretation of the gospels.

 

[roveau]

Any example of this nonsense or is this just your opinion?

At what time did this happen?

** **** **** **** **** **** **** **
Where are you getting this tripe?

The Goose Step was found in ancient Rome?
From Wikipedia:

I’ve read this thread up to here and all I can say is, it’s a brave man that dares to share his own views on this thread.

Maybe not even 10% of responses actually told us how they interpreted passages of the Bible.

 

[rcjones]

I’ve read this thread up to here and all I can say is, it’s a brave man that dares to share his own views on this thread.

Maybe not even 10% of responses actually told us how they interpreted passages of the Bible.

And those that were were dismissed off the cuff in favor of ranting of how the Bible can’t be trusted.

To read the Bible literally, you first accept it as true, then read it with confidence that apparent contradictions are riddles to be solved rather than evidence of un-trustworthiness.
It is a Hebrew book, and this is the Hebrew method of Pashat. An apparent contradiction leads you to examine the text using the methods of Remez, Drash and Sod.

In the reconciliation, not only does the literal remain true but a hidden truth is also discovered.

Unfortunately the OP and the sock puppet do not actually want to know how to read it literally, they wish to rant how untrustworthy it is all the while claiming to believe it as truth. This is the setup for the classic forum troll.

They ignore the answers to the OP such as the suggestion to examine the Qudriga, that the rush to the cross was prophesied, and that those who read the Bible literally reconcile the two genealogies as being from Mary and Joseph in fulfillment of prophecy in favor of ranting how the Bible can’t be trusted.

I have found the respondents to be fair in dealing with minority and even contrary opinions when there is an honest discussion rather than merely someone grand-standing a rant against the Bible or the church.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ve read this thread up to here and all I can say is, it’s a brave man that dares to share his own views on this thread.

Maybe not even 10% of responses actually told us how they interpreted passages of the Bible.

Sharing your own views is one thing. But backing it up by saying the goose-step was invented in ancient Rome, which links the through the Catholic Church to Nazism is showing that you (or the person feeding into your suspicions) is full of it.

As pointed out, the goose-step was invented in Bavaria in the 19th century.

Let’s see, Bavaria was Lutheran. Maybe we should blame the Lutherans for Nazi-ism!

 

[Dlorah]

Through inner Stillness.
Mental interpretation only obscures the true meaning.
Be Still and know that I am God (Psalm 46:10)

 

[scottm]

I’m sorry to pop in here, but things don’t jive. There are honest questions and then there are discussions like this one.

A simple google of “two genealogies of Christ” results in over 2 million hits. Among them there are plenty that address it. Heck even wiki does.

Agreed. Such a question is pointless and on its face completely insincere when it comes from a guy who repeatedly denies the literal resurrection of Jesus.

A “Christian,” by the definition of the religion, does not have to take every verse of the Bible literally, but a Christian does have to take a certain small set of them literally. Way back in posts 5 and 19, or thereabouts, the four classical types of interpretation were mentioned.

But yesterday was the feast of the holy cross (in the Byzantine Churches, anyway). Yep, there’s a holiday on the church calendar just to remember the cross. Why? Because all those Church Father guys were unanimous in saying that Jesus literally rose from the dead. That’s why it’s in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. That’s why we annually celebrate Easter/Pascha. That’s why at baptism we say words to the effect of buried with Jesus in his death, and raised with Jesus to new life.

 

[billwjb]

Sharing your own views is one thing. But backing it up by saying the goose-step was invented in ancient Rome, which links the through the Catholic Church to Nazism is showing that you (or the person feeding into your suspicions) is full of it.

As pointed out, the goose-step was invented in Bavaria in the 19th century.

Let’s see, Bavaria was Lutheran. Maybe we should blame the Lutherans for Nazi-ism!

This thread is the very definition of distortion. I never once used the expression “goose step” and therefore I never said anything about it being “invented” in ancient Rome. The phrase I used was lock-step, by which I meant “cookie cutter” and I was referring to the fantasy that there are even two people who hold the exact same image of Jesus in their heads. The utter nonsense and allegations about Nazi remarks is pure fiction, at least the claim that I made such remarks is pure fiction.

I ifind the reaction of posters to my question about the two geneologies to be interesting. On the one hand, the question is interesting enough to have over 2,000,000 web page references under google, but not interesting enough to deserve a straight answer from the literal folks. Surely with 2,000,000 explanations available, one must meet the standards of those who accept the gospels literally.

I guess I can consider it progress that Scottm posted a notion that not every word in the gospels must be taken literally, but certain selected words do have to be taken literally. I would disagree, but I respect his right to his opinion.

I do find one remark of another poster to be interesting. He/she said that the way to read scripture literally, you must first accept it as true, and then accept apparent inconsistencies as riddles to be solved. In other words: piety rules!

 

[NotWorthy]

This thread is the very definition of distortion. I never once used the expression “goose step” and therefore I never said anything about it being “invented” in ancient Rome. The phrase I used was lock-step, by which I meant “cookie cutter” and I was referring to the fantasy that there are even two people who hold the exact same image of Jesus in their heads. The utter nonsense and allegations about Nazi remarks is pure fiction, at least the claim that I made such remarks is pure fiction.

Bill, please don’t add to the distortions. Nobody claimed that you said this.

It seems that sinnerdexter made the claim and I answered his post without implicating you in any way.

I do find one remark of another poster to be interesting. He/she said that the way to read scripture literally, you must first accept it as true, and then accept apparent inconsistencies as riddles to be solved. In other words: piety rules!

I equate it to Peter’s words in John 6 - “Lord, to whom else would we turn, for you have the words of everlasting life” and to Jesus’ words in John 20 - “Thomas, you believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who haven’t seen and still believe”.

So yes, piety first, is an adequate way to put it.

BTW, I’ll take a look at the two genealogies once again. I didn’t look at it the first time because of lack of spare time on my part and the fact that there are numerous threads on that very subject, and it can risk subverting this thread.

Let me ask you something, Bill.

Is Jesus God? And is he fully Divine and fully Human?

 

[billwjb]

Let me ask you something, Bill.

Is Jesus God? And is he fully Divine and fully Human?

Good questions, and I don’t think I can answer them definitively.

The questions raise other immediate questions. For example, if Jesus were fully God and Fully human, it creates a conflict around his death, for if he was fully divine he would know that he was fully divine and his death on the cross would be essentially meaningless because he would know in advance that he would pop back up again. What kind of sacrifice is it if you know for certain the outcome in advance, and it is a happy outcome? I am inclined to conclude that if Jesus was fully divine, he can’t possibly have known it while he was alive, for otherwise his death is a farce, at least in terms of a sacrifice.

But that leads to an even more difficult question regarding his death as a human sacrifice. It makes less sense than the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his own son. Even though the days of human sacrifice are long gone, at least in this part of the world, I find it to ring odd that an all powerful and loving God would find it appropriate to offer his only son as such a primitive sacrifice – to himself.

On the other hand, great quantities of human imagination and thought have gone into understanding the risen Jesus to be the Christ. and there have been many theological insights about the Christ. My bet is that very few of those insights would have to be changed if it turned out that there was not a bodily resurrection.

 

[Tuno]

For my intents and purposes, billwjb, the problems you describe surrounding the hypostatic union are more than satisfactorily addressed by the realizations that are the foundation of non dualism as treated in such works as Merrell-Wolff’s The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object and many others. Unfortunately that re-introduces the ages-old debate as to whether the Jesus story as publicly told was a cover up to protect the practitioners of a vitally successful Mystery Religion, independent of whether He lived as claimed or not. IMHO, that is exactly the case, and the dynamics of such a scenario easily include the way the Church developed into its current form. I often remember Mark 4:33,34 when that becomes an issue.

The Mystery Religion scenario also is congruent with Identity statements made in both the OT and NT. That scenario is also congruent with several independent lines of both spontaneous and associative Recognitions, those all being consistent in content independent of the time period, culture, religion, location, and any other factor bearing on the “realizer” or proponent. It would also explain various psychological phenomenon occurring in individuals who have no support structure or who experience denial of their recognition by peers.

That was my experience and why I eventually decided to leave that Church. My entire inquiry into a profound life changing realization was effectively dismissed, save by one priest whom I can likely thank for helping me retain my sanity amidst the considerations that came to me as a result. Neither did I find any useful literature within the Church until I discovered the writings of some Saints not too long ago. But it was pretty clear to me that they, due to the extreme diligence of their devotion and inquiry, arrived at realizations remarkably similar to many non-Catholic arrivals at what I can only see as the same Point because of their Love and despite the Church.

Such an explanation as I put forth has been and will be vehemently opposed by standardized faithers of the common mold, but it is the only one which I have found over these last fifty years of looking that comprehends a viable, practical, and useful solution to all such questions as you ask and I persistently asked in an effort to maintain my integrity and honesty within myself relative to my experience, history, and the nature of factors in play when acquiring a religion. If it doesn’t fit their paradigm, that lack of congruency is described by Ken Wilbur in his integrative Brief History of Everything in a passage called Flatland Religion. And anyone wishing to understand why Eastern and Western religiosity are at such seeming odds with each other might well benefit by reading the pages following that section.

I have found that interpreting passages in the Bible from my present standpoint to bear both a literary and philosophical consistency, even including the method of contradictories as used in Hebraic teaching. I also find that now the Bible is more of a curiosity, as useful as it may be to some, then a practical guide. There are, in fact, many better ways. Go figure. And please understand, everyone, that none of this has to do with the Church in particular, but with the nature of belief itself, in any form. If you can’t see that, you don’t get what I’m saying anyway.

 

[billwjb]

… Unfortunately that re-introduces the ages-old debate as to whether the Jesus story as publicly told was a cover up to protect the practitioners of a vitally successful Mystery Religion, independent of whether He lived as claimed or not. IMHO, that is exactly the case, and the dynamics of such a scenario easily include the way the Church developed into its current form. I often remember Mark 4:33,34 when that becomes an issue.

These remarks seem a bit over my head, in that they seem very abstract.I did enjoy the scripture reference (about Jesus using parables to teach

The Mystery Religion scenario also is congruent with Identity statements made in both the OT and NT. That scenario is also congruent with several independent lines of both spontaneous and associative Recognitions, those all being consistent in content independent of the time period, culture, religion, location, and any other factor bearing on the “realizer” or proponent. It would also explain various psychological phenomenon occurring in individuals who have no support structure or who experience denial of their recognition by peers.

I am totally unfamiliar with any Mystery Religion. Frankly, the notion of Christianity being a front to protect a Mystery Religion sounds like something I can look for in Dan Brown’s next novel. (just kidding)

That was my experience and why I eventually decided to leave that Church. My entire inquiry into a profound life changing realization was effectively dismissed, save by one priest whom I can likely thank for helping me retain my sanity amidst the considerations that came to me as a result. Neither did I find any useful literature within the Church until I discovered the writings of some Saints not too long ago. But it was pretty clear to me that they, due to the extreme diligence of their devotion and inquiry, arrived at realizations remarkably similar to many non-Catholic arrivals at what I can only see as the same Point because of their Love and despite the Church.

I can relate to what you say about your life changing ideas being dismissed by nearly everyone. So far, I seem to resonate with a lot of ideas offered by progressive scripture scholars from academia. Maybe that is why I don’t feel isolated and alone (so far).

Such an explanation as I put forth has been and will be vehemently opposed by standardized faithers of the common mold, but it is the only one which I have found over these last fifty years of looking that comprehends a viable, practical, and useful solution to all such questions as you ask and I persistently asked in an effort to maintain my integrity and honesty within myself relative to my experience, history, and the nature of factors in play when acquiring a religion. If it doesn’t fit their paradigm, that lack of congruency is described by Ken Wilbur in his integrative Brief History of Everything in a passage called Flatland Religion. And anyone wishing to understand why Eastern and Western religiosity are at such seeming odds with each other might well benefit by reading the pages following that section.

You are to be commended for protecting your integrity and honesty!
I will admit to being angry upon learning that a wide majority of scripture scholars hold that the gospels are neither history nor biography (although elements of history and biography are contained therein), but they are the reflections of the very earliest followers of Jesus, as refined over many years of retelling. The church, on the other hand, treats them like they are history, probably because it best serves their interests to take that position. In my opinion, that is dishonest.

 

[GuitarPlayer]

Bump

 

[billwjb]

Bump

Define “Bump”

 

[PJM]

=NotWorthy;7079491]… and yet Jesus often calls us “Sheep”.

Hmmmm…

Originally Posted by billwjb
I am confident that one could look through those documents and find statements that would be in conflict with my ideas. But I would also have to admit to my own double standard. I am in close agreement with most all of the church’s teachingss that are about love, and especially about love in action. On the other hand, I believe Jesus would want people to develop some positions on their own. In other words, I don’t think it is especially healthy to depend on the church to tell me what to think, at least not on those topics where I have actually worked out an opinion of my own. This is especially true in areas like history, science, and theology. Like with Galileo, there are those rare occasions where being told what to think by the church results in a grave injustice. In fact, I gather that most of the violence initiated by the Spanish Inquisition was essentially about people being told what to think. Nevertheless, the older I get, the harder it is to slip into that “sheep” costume.

You may closer aligned then you think?

The Chuch ONLY demands complet acceptance of doctrines, dogmas and teachings that relate to either matters of Faith and or Morals.

Science, history, politics ect. all can be held to what one holds to be there own truth, so long as it conforms to CC teaching on Faith an Morals.