Literal and Contextual readings, how do we know?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hoosier_Daddy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hoosier_Daddy

Guest
So, the Bible is full of both literal and contextual readings. But here is the problem. A protestant might say that the Eucharist is metaphorical in the Bible. That it is a sign but it is not really Jesus Body Blood soul and divinity. Then, they may say that the book of Daniel or the Book of Revelation is down to the number accurate. Or perhaps believe in a 6 day creation. And we too might have some confusion on why John Chapter 6 is literal but other things are metaphorical. The question is, how does one know? Why would God be ambiguous?
 
So, the Bible is full of both literal and contextual readings. But here is the problem. A protestant might say that the Eucharist is metaphorical in the Bible. That it is a sign but it is not really Jesus Body Blood soul and divinity. Then, they may say that the book of Daniel or the Book of Revelation is down to the number accurate. Or perhaps believe in a 6 day creation. And we too might have some confusion on why John Chapter 6 is literal but other things are metaphorical. The question is, how does one know? Why would God be ambiguous?
If only He left us an institution that would remain here on earth to sort our these sorts of things when questions arise.

Oh wait… 😛
 
So, the Bible is full of both literal and contextual readings. But here is the problem. A protestant might say that the Eucharist is metaphorical in the Bible. That it is a sign but it is not really Jesus Body Blood soul and divinity. Then, they may say that the book of Daniel or the Book of Revelation is down to the number accurate. Or perhaps believe in a 6 day creation. And we too might have some confusion on why John Chapter 6 is literal but other things are metaphorical. The question is, how does one know? Why would God be ambiguous?
Hossier Daddy:

I’m a Hossier, too! My son is soon to attend Purdue. I think discussing John, chapter 6 was the turning point for me, which turned me from Evangelicalism to Catholicism. These words, specifically were convincing to me:

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

(John 6:54)

You see, I had been studying the Bible for a long time. What I knew is that every instance of symbolism in one passage had an explanation of that symbolism in another passage of scripture.

Now there was an explanation of the symbolism of eating flesh and drinking blood, but it was not used in the Bible as a symbol of believing. It was used as a symbol of killing an enemy.

“You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of the princes of the earth as if they were rams and lambs, goats and bulls—all of them fattened animals from Bashan.”

(Ezekiel 39:18)

I guess the approach to take when having a thoughtful conversation with non-Catholics is to ask them to explain why they believe he was speaking of eating being a metaphor for believing.
 
Hossier Daddy:

I’m a Hossier, too! My son is soon to attend Purdue. I think discussing John, chapter 6 was the turning point for me, which turned me from Evangelicalism to Catholicism. These words, specifically were convincing to me:

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

(John 6:54)

You see, I had been studying the Bible for a long time. What I knew is that every instance of symbolism in one passage had an explanation of that symbolism in another passage of scripture.

Now there was an explanation of the symbolism of eating flesh and drinking blood, but it was not used in the Bible as a symbol of believing. It was used as a symbol of killing an enemy.

“You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of the princes of the earth as if they were rams and lambs, goats and bulls—all of them fattened animals from Bashan.”

(Ezekiel 39:18)

I guess the approach to take when having a thoughtful conversation with non-Catholics is to ask them to explain why they believe he was speaking of eating being a metaphor for believing.
I’m a Hossier, too! My son is soon to attend Purdue.
I’m sorry on both counts. I am not a Hoosier by choice! And since I am pretty close to Purdue I am sorry he could not get into a good school.:p:D

Why not send him out west. You know, so he can see more than a smokestack and a cornfield…
JK, but not really… I hate it here!

As to the rest. I have never made the connection between the two, thanks for the explanation!
 
If only He left us an institution that would remain here on earth to sort our these sorts of things when questions arise.

Oh wait… 😛
Yes, yes I know. But the Church is silent on most areas of contention. Not the Eucharist perhaps but others. How is a good Christian to know when it really means what it says. Jesus says I speak to you in parables and then he does. And he says why, And we know what the parables are. But the rest of God’s word seems open to interpretations.
 
I’m sorry on both counts. I am not a Hoosier by choice! And since I am pretty close to Purdue I am sorry he could not get into a good school.:p:D

Why not send him out west. You know, so he can see more than a smokestack and a cornfield…
JK, but not really… I hate it here!

As to the rest. I have never made the connection between the two, thanks for the explanation!
He’s happy he got into Purdue. I’m not. Do you know what the tuition is now?

😃

Just joking. Glad he got in. Just don’t know how to afford it. As for the rest, glad I could help out a little.

🙂
 
He’s happy he got into Purdue. I’m not. Do you know what the tuition is now?

😃

Just joking. Glad he got in. Just don’t know how to afford it. As for the rest, glad I could help out a little.

🙂
Got in? I was shocked at how easy it was to “get in” for in state students when I moved here. Purdue has a rather lofty reputation outside of the Midwest for reasons I will never understand. But here, it seems every half alive mostly conscience person gets into that school. I mean have you seen that town!? Just send him lots of bottled water and a gun. 😃

I do know what tuition is now and it is a crime. The good new is apparently you only need have a pulse to play football there, so there are scholarships to be had…
But seriously, Congratulations to your son and to you. This is a major accomplishment in life and you should feel proud. I’m sure Purdue won’t damage him too much and he will recover from the damage at some point… 😉 If you need parish recommendations for him let me know. Thomas Aquinas on campus is all the rage, but if he wishes a more home like parish I can come up with a few…
 
Hossier Daddy:

I’m a Hossier, too! My son is soon to attend Purdue. I think discussing John, chapter 6 was the turning point for me, which turned me from Evangelicalism to Catholicism. These words, specifically were convincing to me:

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

(John 6:54)

You see, I had been studying the Bible for a long time. What I knew is that every instance of symbolism in one passage had an explanation of that symbolism in another passage of scripture.

Now there was an explanation of the symbolism of eating flesh and drinking blood, but it was not used in the Bible as a symbol of believing. It was used as a symbol of killing an enemy.

“You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of the princes of the earth as if they were rams and lambs, goats and bulls—all of them fattened animals from Bashan.”

(Ezekiel 39:18)

I guess the approach to take when having a thoughtful conversation with non-Catholics is to ask them to explain why they believe he was speaking of eating being a metaphor for believing.
I was wondering. When the OT speaks of not to drink blood, was that part of the ‘law’ or was it simply tradition? Thanks!
 
Yes, yes I know. But the Church is silent on most areas of contention. Not the Eucharist perhaps but others. How is a good Christian to know when it really means what it says. Jesus says I speak to you in parables and then he does. And he says why, And we know what the parables are. But the rest of God’s word seems open to interpretations.
Like what for ex? I have found that the Church says something about the entirety of Scripture. Maybe look for some good commentaries, and get a Catholic bible with wonderful footnotes for a start.
The Bible Timeline is a FABULOUS series. See if your parish offer it, or purchase it. A great investment. You could gather some other parishioners for a class in your home or a night out in your parish.
As a DRE, I would be delighted if someone offered to host it and then I’d seek out a Deacon LEM to help facilitate it.
 
Got in? I was shocked at how easy it was to “get in” for in state students when I moved here. Purdue has a rather lofty reputation outside of the Midwest for reasons I will never understand. But here, it seems every half alive mostly conscience person gets into that school. I mean have you seen that town!? Just send him lots of bottled water and a gun. 😃

I do know what tuition is now and it is a crime. The good new is apparently you only need have a pulse to play football there, so there are scholarships to be had…
But seriously, Congratulations to your son and to you. This is a major accomplishment in life and you should feel proud. I’m sure Purdue won’t damage him too much and he will recover from the damage at some point… 😉 If you need parish recommendations for him let me know. Thomas Aquinas on campus is all the rage, but if he wishes a more home like parish I can come up with a few…
😃
 
I was wondering. When the OT speaks of not to drink blood, was that part of the ‘law’ or was it simply tradition? Thanks!
Law, but not one of the 10 commandments. The Jewish people were not to drink the blood of an animal, or eat anything cooked in the milk of an animal.
 
Law, but not one of the 10 commandments. The Jewish people were not to drink the blood of an animal, or eat anything cooked in the milk of an animal.
Ok, thanks. I’m assuming that people in the OT were not to drink human blood either? So, if they weren’t, then how could Jesus tell people they had to drink his blood, literally? Wouldn’t it be a sin to tell people to break the ‘law’?
 
Ok, thanks. I’m assuming that people in the OT were not to drink human blood either? So, if they weren’t, then how could Jesus tell people they had to drink his blood, literally? Wouldn’t it be a sin to tell people to break the ‘law’?
Read the Lamb’s Supper book:
amazon.com/The-Lambs-Supper-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591
Jesus is the new Passover meal. During Passover, Jews were to slaughter a spotless lamb, eat the flesh and mark the lintel posts with its blood.
Jesus, being the new sacrificial Lamb, commands us to eat of His flesh and drink His blood.
We take Him at His word, as Catholics. There were indeed some, that believed that this was cannibalism, and still do to this day.
It’s about the Sacrificial Lamb.
 
Ok, thanks. I’m assuming that people in the OT were not to drink human blood either? So, if they weren’t, then how could Jesus tell people they had to drink his blood, literally? Wouldn’t it be a sin to tell people to break the ‘law’?
The OT claimed that the sons of Zion would drink blood like wine and be saved. This prefigures the Eucharistic sacrifice. Zech. 9:15-16
 
From the Catechism:

"109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

"110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

"111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

"The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

"112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
Code:
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
“113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (”. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

"114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

"The senses of Scripture

"115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

"116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

"117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
"118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
Code:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
"119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
Code:
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89"
Ed
 
Ok, thanks. I’m assuming that people in the OT were not to drink human blood either? So, if they weren’t, then how could Jesus tell people they had to drink his blood, literally? Wouldn’t it be a sin to tell people to break the ‘law’?
Read Acts 10:10 through 10:47.

Peace,
Ed
 
The OT claimed that the sons of Zion would drink blood like wine and be saved. This prefigures the Eucharistic sacrifice. Zech. 9:15-16
The use of the word ‘blood’ is not mentioned in the Greek. That was added to a couple of translations. The bible used on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops leave the word ‘blood’ out. Also, the Douay-Rheims 1899 (DRA) along with most others do not use the word ‘blood’. Those two verses, in context, have nothing to do with the Eucharist.
 
Read Acts 10:10 through 10:47.

Peace,
Ed
Yes, thank you. But that really has nothing to do with my question. The voice that spoke to Peter was for the Christians. My question is when Jesus was speaking to the Jews. From my basic understanding, the Jewish law forbid them to drink blood.

(On a side note: even in the book of Acts 15:20, James tells the gentiles not to drink blood. Also, in the letter they wrote in Acts 15:29)

So, if it was against the ‘law’ to drink blood, was it a sin for Jesus to tell the Jews to drink his blood?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top