How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[schaick]

Hi Shaick,

I would really like to discuss this in more detail with you but discussing it here will derail the thread.

The only question relevant here is how do we know who is correct? The above explanation however goes beyond this.

So, would you like to start a thread regarding this and we can join you on that thread?

Peace!

Cory

How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

Up to a certain point we all have the same interpretation and it is correct because it is harmonious with all of GOD’s Word.

After that, when we start to differ, it is no longer interpretation but our application. How we each individually celebrate our one true faith.

**Catholics see false interpretations, we see different applications of faith. **

**We all celebrate the Eucharist with many common understandings, but some of us apply/celebrate this interpretation as: **

Real Presence of Body and Blood [human and GOD] of Christ
or
Real Presence of the Sprirtual Body and Blood [GOD] of Christ
or
a glorified, immortal Body and Blood [resurrected] of Christ
or
a symbolic Communion

Someone pointed out the magistratum and you mentioned how they all differed- I said maybe THEY are defining/interpreting to too specific of a point.

tqualey and onenow1, the following in no way affects my arguement-
1 Corinthians 11

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

In fact transubstantiation maybe a false assumption and it may actually be consubstantiation, then again it might simply be in, under and with.

“body and blood of the Lord.” Doesn’t say what the make-up of that body and blood is - human/earth, GOD form? It is in fact in John 6 were we see the spiritual make-up mentioned multiple times and comparison to the spirit giving life. GOD gives life, not HIS earth form part.

 

[Cinette]

How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

Up to a certain point we all have the same interpretation and it is correct because it is harmonious with all of GOD’s Word.

After that, when we start to differ, it is no longer interpretation but our application. How we each individually celebrate our one true faith.

**Catholics see false interpretations, we see different applications of faith. **

**We all celebrate the Eucharist with many common understandings, but some of us apply/celebrate **this interpretation as:

Real Presence of Body and Blood [human and GOD] of Christ
or
Real Presence of the Sprirtual Body and Blood [GOD] of Christ
or
a glorified, immortal Body and Blood [resurrected] of Christ
or
a symbolic Communion

Someone pointed out the magistratum and you mentioned how they all differed- I said maybe THEY are defining/interpreting to too specific of a point.

tqualey and onenow1, the following in no way affects my arguement-
1 Corinthians 11

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

In fact transubstantiation maybe a false assumption and it may actually be consubstantiation, then again it might simply be in, under and with.

“body and blood of the Lord.” Doesn’t say what the make-up of that body and blood is - human/earth, GOD form? It is in fact in John 6 were we see the spiritual make-up mentioned multiple times and comparison to the spirit giving life. GOD gives life, not HIS earth form part.

*Who and what is your authority? You do not say.

This exposition you have made is just saying that apples are equal to oranges and bananas, pears, pineapples…because they are all fruit!!!

You need to pray and reflect on your words. You are your own pope!!! Not good.

Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

*P.S. So I suppose one can conclude that you are your own authority!

*

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Catholics see false interpretations, we see different applications of faith.

Who is the “we” you think you are speaking for? Just those in your church or faith community or do you think you are speaking for non-catholic Christians? If it is the latter you are sadly mistaken. I know of quite a few Lutherans and Anglicans that would flat out tell you that you have a “false interpretation”. In fact Luther said something very similar to Zwingli; his choice of words was far more harsh though

God bless

 

[Tommy555]

That is correct.

Only if the woman takes the place of the priest. The priest is the one who so particularly and magnificently represents Christ. The people who do the readings or assist the priest don’t have to be men for the spiritual symbolism to remain intact. In fact, Mary Magdalene poured perfume on Jesus’ feet to prepare Him for His burial while He was still alive on Earth, and the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass is the proclamation of Christ’s death (1 Cor. 11:25). Jesus saw nothing wrong with a woman assisting Him in the preparation for His Great Pascal Sacrifice, just as women today can bring the gifts to the priest at the altar while never themselves taking the role of the priest. The priest himself can never be a woman. To pretend that a woman could be a priest would be to distort the glory of the Incarnation.

The Virgin Mary stood at the foot of the Cross, as we all do at the Mass; she did not hang on the Cross as the Eucharist is raised into the air in the hands of the priest and then broken that all might receive. The Old and New Testaments reveal only men possessing either the offices of presbyter or bishop, and Christ chose only men as His apostles. In keeping with this Sacred Tradition, the Church, speaking through John Paul II, has decreed infallibly that the Church can never ordain women; she has no authority to do so.

Your post above is very beautiful and shows a much stronger theology of the Mass than the average Catholic has. I very much enjoyed reading it . My difficulty with it is that you kept on suggesting that a woman participating in the Mass in any way is the same thing as her snatching the role of the priesthood, and that suggestion severely undermines the distinctive glory of Holy Orders.

The role of the priest remains necessarily a man. Having a woman offer a reading does nothing to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and, consequently, does nothing to diminish the validity of the Mass or to distort the image of Christ as Priest. Christ the High Priest is indeed revealed in the priest, as you say in your post. The presence of women, or men, assisting the priest, does not impair this Christological image. It’s women replacing His role as priest that would distort the Christology of the Sacrifice of the Mass if ever practiced. That is why the Church has repeatedly and constantly condemned the effort of feminists to snare the priesthood for women, but the Church has permitted women to assist at the Mass in other ways, such as offering readings or bringing the gifts to the altar. The Church hasn’t permitted women to assist at Mass as a concession to feminism; she has done this because there is nothing doctrinally wrong with it. Women helping the priest at Mass aren’t acting in the role of the priest, so they aren’t distorting the image of him standing place of Christ the High Priest.

On another note, it is very important for us to trust the mind of the Church, even if we don’t understand something she has done or said. The Letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians says the following,

“Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God! Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God. Please ye Him under whom ye fight, and from whom ye receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that ye may receive a worthy recompense. Be long-suffering, therefore, with one another, in meekness, as God is towards you.May I have joy of you for ever!”

This teaching, that we should never desert the Church or bishop but suffer in meekness, trusting always, understanding that his doctrine will stand firm, believing the opinion of the Church above our own, this is a high pathway to holiness. It is required of us all.

I too am struggling with an issue where it would appear on the surface that the Church’s teaching changed, but I surrender to the Church out of faith, for I know that she is right and my confusion is just my confusion. I know that by faith, if not fully by understanding as yet. And I continue to seek to form my understanding according to her wisdom; I’m just still seeking more information. The Church is always one, true, and faithful, and she cannot ever err or fail. Praise be to Jesus Who offers us so holy and glorious a promise (Matt. 16:18-19)!

Paragraph 1088 of the your Catechism states, “Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially in the Eucharistic species. By his power he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes, it is really Christ himself who baptizes. He is present in his word since **it is he himself who speaks **when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church.” To me (and, of course, I am no authority): If it is Christ speaking His word (and it is), and it is the priest who represents Christ (and he does), then it should be the priest–or a priest–doing the reading. God bless. Tommy

 

[onenow1]

*Jesus told us to be like little children. We tend to want to intellectualise everything. If we are to be “Poor in Spirit” we need to understand that we are nothing without God. Whatever God says I will accept even if I do not understand.

Now looking for an explanation for something I cannot understand like saying that the Eucharist is a “spiritual body” is doing just that - trying to find an explanation for something we do not understand.

Cinette*

Exactly ! “He who does not believe the Son, makes Him a liar.”
1John 5:10

God Bless All

 

[Cinette]

Paragraph 1088 of the your Catechism states, “Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially in the Eucharistic species. By his power he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes, it is really Christ himself who baptizes. He is present in his word since **it is he himself who speaks **when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church.” To me (and, of course, I am no authority): If it is Christ speaking His word (and it is), and it is the priest who represents Christ (and he does), then it should be the priest–or a priest–doing the reading. God bless. Tommy

*You are an unusual Protestant Tommy. Protestantism has been diluted through the ages. Luther would not recognise “his church”. He believed that Mary was the Mother of God but today Protestants say no to this. He believed in the Eucharist and then once he left the Church things began to change and have not stopped changing ever since. Protestants call our Pope the Anti Christ so they are unlikely to believe anything Catholics believe in. By reading the Catechism you will at least know what we believe. I think when it comes to Priests being male (exclusively) it is also a question of roles. Look at man and women - look at their roles. They both have important roles. Women have primary roles and depending on circumstances may occupy other roles which have traditionally been that of men (as long as their primary roles do not suffer…) Of course there are other reasons for not having priestesses. I am afraid that power corrupts and power is often at the root of evil.

Cinette *

 

[Nicea325]

I would say that no man alive truly understands what the make-up of Jesus was before or after HIS ressurrection.

Yes Jesus did say this is my Body and Blood- but look back at John 6 specifically:

58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
…
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

AND we know that after ressurrection it is a glorified body.

EXACTLY!!

So because we are diverse individuals our **application **of the interpretaion will be diverse.

LOL!! You just had to inject that!

The belief that the Eucharist is symbolic is a novelty and that is a fact of history you simply cannot accept. I challenge you to provide me the overhwhelming writings from the early church fathers and other Christians teaching the Eucharist was ONLY symbolic?

BTW:If the Eucharist was taught from the get-go as only symbolic,then there should exist ample writings rebuking the belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a heresy or usurpation. I’ll await your sources.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by schaick
I would say that no man alive truly understands what the make-up of Jesus was before or after HIS ressurrection.

Yes Jesus did say this is my Body and Blood- but look back at John 6 specifically:

58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
…
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

AND we know that after ressurrection it is a glorified body.

EXACTLY!!

So because we are diverse individuals our application of the interpretaion will be diverse.

LOL!! You just had to inject that!

The belief that the Eucharist is symbolic is a novelty and that is a fact of history you simply cannot accept. I challenge you to provide me the overhwhelming writings from the early church fathers and other Christians teaching the Eucharist was ONLY symbolic?

BTW:If the Eucharist was taught from the get-go as only symbolic,then there should exist ample writings rebuking the belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a heresy or usurpation. I’ll await your sources.

schaick :

When you have the chance go ahead send me the sources from the ancient church teaching the Eucharist was ONLY symbolic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Schaick,

I will let Onenow1 go after your comment his own way - I have my sights firmly fixed on what really seems to be a shell game you are playing.

I do not want to sound impatient … but, you still have yet to put some real scripture behind any of your assumptions and creative interpretations. Try going back to my post 392 and 394 and - start doing more than saying “I can believe however I want - I am not bound by the obvious Word of God!”

Really, watching you wiggle around direct questions is getting a bit tedious. Face the Reality of a Totally Powerful God Who does what He says He does. He gave us His real Flesh and Blood to eat (John 6) and not some spiritual item that you are trying to come up with. Just read John 6 and show where the context allows you to misread one verse and say it contradicts everything else!

You know, one of the big challenges for 8th graders is reading comprehension where they are given a fairly complex story and then are asked questions that require that have understood what they read - not just go back and find words that seem to match. This is sooooooooooo much more than basic comprehension of the written word - we are talking about your immortal soul.

Read it and get back with us - honest. You will just keep ducking the issue as long as you fail to come up with a real understanding of what John 6 is talking about.

While the others are waiting for references (which, really is a great idea) my aims are much more down to earth: reading comprehension! Now, stop disappointing me and show me what you can do!

God bless

• tqualey and onenow1, the following in no way affects my arguement-
  1 Corinthians 11

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

In fact transubstantiation maybe a false assumption and it may actually be consubstantiation, then again it might simply be in, under and with*.

“body and blood of the Lord.” Doesn’t say what the make-up of that body and blood is - human/earth, GOD form? It is in fact in John 6 were we see the spiritual make-up mentioned multiple times and comparison to the spirit giving life. GOD gives life, not HIS earth form part.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Schaick,

Our Lord explained the meaning of His figurative speech even though taking His words literally would have caused no great harm. We know from this, most certainly, that where there would arise a misunderstanding that would cause harm, Our Lord would most definitely make things very clear to his listeners. This is what happened here >Gospel (John 6:48-72):

When Jesus was teaching in the synagogue He told His listeners that:
“the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.” The Jews then, “strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus, rather than give a FIGURATIVE meaning to His words, repeated the same in more emphatic terms:

“Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, drink His blood you have no life in you.”

This was a command, and a divine precept. Many of his disciples murmured at this saying, “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”

Jesus, knowing this, said to them, “Doth this scandalize you?” And, rather than give a figurative meaning still, “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus, knowing that they had taken Him literally, was then prepared to allow even the twelve apostles to leave Him; Jesus asked His twelve, “Will you also go away?”

It is obvious that Jesus meant his words to be taken literally. The way Catholics have always believed them. Jesus promised: “The bread that I will give is my flesh…”.

On the eve of His death Jesus fulfilled His promise saying, “Take ye and eat. This is my body.” Those who have the true Faith accept this. Before the “Deformation” of the 16th century, when being Christian was synonymous with being Catholic, all Christians believed this and obeyed

Our Lord’s command by receiving Him in the Eucharist so that they would “have life”.

The above verses are either the word of God or they are not.

A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT BELOW:

The Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans, the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol.

The Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?

The Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?

The Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?

The Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, ‘once saved always saved’, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?

The Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?

I believe the above comments, nail it down on interpreting the bible.

Who has the authority to intepret ?

God Bless
onenow1

 

[Araninski]

Why do people assume the things of the Spirit are symbolical…

Originally Posted by schaick
I would say that no man alive truly understands what the make-up of Jesus was before or after HIS ressurrection.

Yes Jesus did say this is my Body and Blood- but look back at John 6 specifically:

58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
…
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

AND we know that after ressurrection it is a glorified body.

EXACTLY!!

So because we are diverse individuals our application of the interpretaion will be diverse.

LOL!! You just had to inject that!

When we go and it the Eucharist, we are accepting spiritually Jesus blood and body. Flesh counts for nothing, if the Eucharist is just something physical then is nothing. Spiritual NOT equal to symbolical.

The breaking of the bread and drinking wine, is what He referred to what is His body and blood. Abraham did it with the Priest of Melchizedek , what the Jews did for so long after so much years, that is His blood and body. That act is the body and blood, that thing we do in remembrance of Him is His blood and body not the bread and the wine. And I am sure that faithful believers who are in a state of grace receive His blood and body every time they participate in the breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine, not because they believe the bread is His physical body and is blood physically in that bread, but because that is the act that says we are in Him and He in us.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Araninski,

Do you know what REALLY counts for nothing? Let me tell you…

Inappropriately lifting one verse out of an entire chapter focused on Christ saying that He is giving us His Flesh to eat - and if we don’t eat it we will die - and then claiming that Christ did not mean this at all! THAT type of misreading counts for nothing.

Seriously, re-read ALL of John 6. Count the time Christ identifies Himself with food - and note when He tells His listeners that they are to eat His Flesh - and they revolt and say that Christ is crazy (“This is a hard saying, who can listen to it” - and they walked out on Christ.) Note, Christ did not run after them saying they ‘misunderstood’ Him - they really did understand Christ - and they really did reject what He said.

Don’t be surprised - this type of rejection is going on today - especially from those who are content to mis-read one verse and fail to comprehend what the entire Chapter of John 6 is saying.

Give it another try and honestly see if you can summarize this chapter in 100 words or less. Then let us see what you come up with.

God bless

Why do people assume the things of the Spirit are symbolical…

When we go and it the Eucharist, we are accepting spiritually Jesus blood and body. Flesh counts for nothing, if the Eucharist is just something physical then is nothing. Spiritual NOT equal to symbolical.

The breaking of the bread and drinking wine, is what He referred to what is His body and blood. Abraham did it with the Priest of Melchizedek , what the Jews did for so long after so much years, that is His blood and body. That act is the body and blood, that thing we do in remembrance of Him is His blood and body not the bread and the wine. And I am sure that faithful believers who are in a state of grace receive His blood and body every time they participate in the breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine, not because they believe the bread is His physical body and is blood physically in that bread, but because that is the act that says we are in Him and He in us.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Schaick,

Our Lord explained the meaning of His figurative speech even though taking His words literally would have caused no great harm. We know from this, most certainly, that where there would arise a misunderstanding that would cause harm, Our Lord would most definitely make things very clear to his listeners. This is what happened here >Gospel (John 6:48-72):

When Jesus was teaching in the synagogue He told His listeners that:
“the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.” The Jews then, “strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus, rather than give a FIGURATIVE meaning to His words, repeated the same in more emphatic terms:

“Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, drink His blood you have no life in you.”

This was a command, and a divine precept. Many of his disciples murmured at this saying, “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”

Jesus, knowing this, said to them, “Doth this scandalize you?” And, rather than give a figurative meaning still, “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus, knowing that they had taken Him literally, was then prepared to allow even the twelve apostles to leave Him; Jesus asked His twelve, “Will you also go away?”

It is obvious that Jesus meant his words to be taken literally. The way Catholics have always believed them. Jesus promised: “The bread that I will give is my flesh…”.

On the eve of His death Jesus fulfilled His promise saying, “Take ye and eat. This is my body.” Those who have the true Faith accept this. Before the “Deformation” of the 16th century, when being Christian was synonymous with being Catholic, all Christians believed this and obeyed

Our Lord’s command by receiving Him in the Eucharist so that they would “have life”.

1 Timothy 3:15 1Timothy 3:15 The pillar of truth is the Church.
Ephesians 3: 10 Through the Church the wisdom of God may be known.

The above verses are either the word of God or they are not.

A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT BELOW:

The Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans, the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol.

The Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?

The Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?

The Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?

The Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, ‘once saved always saved’, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?

The Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?

I believe the above comments, nail it down on interpreting the bible.

Who has the authority to intepret ?

Correction to post #410 Left out 1Timothy 3: 15 and Ephesians 3:10

 

[Roy5]

I have been in various ecumenical Bible study groups with Protestants as well as Catholics.

It was my observation that most Protestants in such groups don’t require an absolute and true interpretation of most verses. It’s not so much a matter of different denominations. It’s a certain mindset that more and more Catholics seem to have now.

Here's the way it goes. So, three members of the study group give three different interpretations of a verse. Maybe "thou shalt not kill". A Mennonite might believe that this requires him to be a conscientious objector in war, serve in the medical corps but not carry a gun. A Catholic might argue the 'just war' theory. Someone else might say that war in our modern time has become just too murderous and that unless we are attacked we cannot go to war - for example, we were wrong to invade Iraq. Etc.

 Or, let's see, what about abortion - as murder? A Catholic might say that under no conditions is abortion justified. It always is murder. Most liberal Protestants would make exceptions - rape, save life of mother, some others perhaps. A fundamentalist Protestant might agree with the Catholic. Another Protestant might say the whole matter is private, the mother (and father) together with a doctor make the decision, certainly if an abortion is within the first trimester. Etc. 

   Protestants, I have found, are quick to say: "Fine. We don't agree. Let's agree to disagree." Protestants usually put much more emphasis on individual interpretation without a dogmatic edge. Well, I think those ecumenical groups have attracted more liberal (mainline) Protestants than staunch evangelicals. Evangelicals are nearer the Catholic position on many moral issues, despite major differences in doctrine.

  Speaking of theology, Catholics receive theirs from the magisterium. Here it is. Believe it. Protestants in these groups were much more likely to think individually and reach various conclusions, regardless of their denomination. Like Mary. Catholics, of course, might speak up for the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Protestants honor Mary but see nothing in scripture to support either of those doctrines, one defined in 1854, the other in 1950. They also ask: if Mary should be so central - Queen of Heaven and much more - why is it that St. Paul, in all of his letters, discusses theology in much detail but never once mentions her?

   I have found Protestant vary considerably on the Eucharist, too. They may not accept transubstantiation, but some view it as very central to worship, maybe offer it every Sunday. Others see it as symbolic and may not give it that much attention - usually the first Sunday of each month. Quakers and the Salvation Army don't have it at all. As I understand it both may view every meal together with family and Christian friends as communion. All of life, in fact, is seen as a sacrament (of sorts?). Not quite sure I understand though I heard it eloquently explained one time.

  Enough for now. Protestants I know don't seem that concerned about having one interpretation of scripture. They seem pleased to entertain various ideas with animated discussion but without argument. My guess is that more evangelical Protestants are more likely to adhere to a stricter set of doctrines, which is why we have so many small evangelical denominations. High-church Anglicans, Missouri-Synold Lutherans and a variety of others are apt to be more theologically conservative, too. 

  God bless all of his children of every color, creed and country. May religion become a bridge and bnot a barrier..

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Araninski,

Do you know what REALLY counts for nothing? Let me tell you…

Inappropriately lifting one verse out of an entire chapter focused on Christ saying that He is giving us His Flesh to eat - and if we don’t eat it we will die - and then claiming that Christ did not mean this at all! THAT type of misreading counts for nothing.

Seriously, re-read ALL of John 6. Count the time Christ identifies Himself with food - and note when He tells His listeners that they are to eat His Flesh - and they revolt and say that Christ is crazy (“This is a hard saying, who can listen to it” - and they walked out on Christ.) Note, Christ did not run after them saying they ‘misunderstood’ Him - they really did understand Christ - and they really did reject what He said.

Don’t be surprised - this type of rejection is going on today - especially from those who are content to mis-read one verse and fail to comprehend what the entire Chapter of John 6 is saying.

Give it another try and honestly see if you can summarize this chapter in 100 words or less. Then let us see what you come up with.

God bless

I eat the body and blood of my Lord, Jesus Christ everyday of my life and without it , I would certainly be dead. If you want to acknowledge Jesus blood and body as been eating physically that’s your problem, I have life through Him, spiritually because the things of the flesh are weak, no need in believing a bread has His flesh and his blood.

Flesh will not inherit the kingdom of Heavens.

1 Corinthians 15:50
“I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”

God loves you!

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

  Enough for now. Protestants I know don't seem that concerned about having one interpretation of scripture. They seem pleased to entertain various ideas with animated discussion but without argument. .

IDK Roy, you always seem to take issue with the Catholic interpretation.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

the things of the flesh are weak, no need in believing a bread has His flesh and his blood.

Wait, you are not referring to Christ’s flesh as being “weak” are you? Christ’s blood and flesh was/is anything but weak:

for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt. 26:28

he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Heb. 9-12

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace. Eph. 1: 7

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Araninski,

I am not surprised at all - simply ask you to read an entire Chapter (as opposed to one mis-understood verse) and to read for comprehension, and you simply refuse. I can understand you not wanting to move forward on this - comfort is so much easier. But, one day, when you are feeling up to it - try the entire 6th Chapter of John and then reduce it to 100 words or less and see how different it looks contrasted with the mistaken idea you have presented with this one-verse-says-it-all approalch.

Truly, misreading what is written is of no value at all.

God bless

I eat the body and blood of my Lord, Jesus Christ everyday of my life and without it , I would certainly be dead. If you want to acknowledge Jesus blood and body as been eating physically that’s your problem, I have life through Him, spiritually because the things of the flesh are weak, no need in believing a bread has His flesh and his blood.

Flesh will not inherit the kingdom of Heavens.

1 Corinthians 15:50
“I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”

God loves you!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

I have been in various ecumenical Bible study groups with Protestants as well as Catholics.

It was my observation that most Protestants in such groups don’t require an absolute and true interpretation of most verses. It’s not so much a matter of different denominations. It’s a certain mindset that more and more Catholics seem to have now.

Actually, Roy5, I think you are correct. What you are actually experiencing is a diverse group of people all claiming their religion’s origin from around the 16th Century, all lacking in a central authority, all have changed their doctrinal positions over time and all think that such lack of consistency is a virtue. And, you are comparing this group with Catholics whose cornerstone is Christ Who founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18).

  Or, let's see, what about abortion - as murder? A Catholic might say that under no conditions is abortion justified. It always is murder.

But, this is not the position of Catholic Church. The idea of medical emergencies where to do nothing would result in both the loss of Mother and Child requires that actions be taken to save a life. If one life is lost in the process, this was not intended and is certainly not murder Roy5.

Most liberal Protestants would make exceptions - rape,

The exception you are claiming is to murder an innocent life for the convenience of another. Even though this child’s conception is the result of an act of violence - there is not even the pretense of a murdered human being. This is the same ploy that Planned Parenthood uses to camouflage their butchery of life and conscience.

save life of mother, some others perhaps. A fundamentalist Protestant might agree with the Catholic. Another Protestant might say the whole matter is private, the mother (and father) together with a doctor make the decision, certainly if an abortion is within the first trimester. Etc.

This is rather tortured logic - and just because it mimicks the Supreme Court does not make it any less murderous.

   Protestants, I have found, are quick to say: "Fine. We don't agree. Let's agree to disagree." Protestants usually put much more emphasis on individual interpretation without a dogmatic edge.

This is because there is no dogmatic edge to begin with. One group says baptism is necessary, another says the altar call is all that is needed, yet a third says it is just a symbol that is not required. But, again, you are making a virtue out of necessity - these groups that you mention are all the board when it comes to doctrine. Not one can claim anything - even the Bible they use is from the Catholic Church that was abridged so as to fit new doctrine.

  Speaking of theology, Catholics receive theirs from the magisterium. Here it is. Believe it. Protestants in these groups were much more likely to think individually and reach various conclusions, regardless of their denomination. Like Mary.

One of the major problems with claiming only scripture (and if I don’t like what is written, I will interpret it the way I see best!) is that the Bible as we commonly think of it, only appeared as it does in the year 400AD. Ever wonder what happened to those Christians (actually the first Catholics) before the Canon was approved by the Catholic Church? Well, you can stop wondering - the answer is Apostolic Tradition (not the traditions of men).

   I have found Protestant vary considerably on the Eucharist, too. They may not accept transubstantiation, but some view it as very central to worship, maybe offer it every Sunday. Others see it as symbolic and may not give it that much attention - usually the first Sunday of each month. Quakers and the Salvation Army don't have it at all. As I understand it both may view every meal together with family and Christian friends as communion. All of life, in fact, is seen as a sacrament (of sorts?). Not quite sure I understand though I heard it eloquently explained one time.

Let me encourage you to read the 6th Chapter of John’s Godspel, Roy5, and you can see the emphasis that Christ places on the Eucharist - just read the whole thing - keep all in context and you will be much closer to understanding what Christ say in preparation for Holy Thursday and the Last Supper.

  Enough for now. Protestants I know don't seem that concerned about having one interpretation of scripture.

You are soooooooo wrong on this, Roy5, and let me tell you why. For there to one interpretation of scripture it would mean that all of diverse, competing, squabling and screaming groups would have to accept someone else’s interpretation - and, because of their 16th - 21st roots in refusing to obey authority Christ has given His Church - they will only accept their own interpretation.

  God bless all of his children of every color, creed and country. May religion become a bridge and bnot a barrier..

God bless you, Roy5.