I
Ignatius
Guest
Everything ever written has to be understood in context. It is from the context that we derive the type or genre of writing that is intended.
- Status
I
Ignatius
Guest
Yup, that is actually the answer to most of these questions. It is sad that so many Catholics actually fall for the fallacious idea that everyone is supposed to figure everything out themselves. God plans better than that.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…
S
spockrates
Guest
Hoosier: I see. Then what is your answer to my question? Why is if that eating the flesh of a fellow human being is wrong but eating the flesh of Christ is right?
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I don’t have an answer. Other than When God tells you to do something you do it.
But I do think that this is one reason so many walked away from Jesus when he said this. They would have been repulsed more than just the cannibal aspect, to them it would be going against the Law. Honestly I think the refusal of those following him really back up the literal argument of the Eucharist because “hey, guys, I was just kidding and being metaphorical” was something God could have said. He didn’t. But it is odd how personal interpretation of the Bible varies so widely. Certainly in protestant circles but even in Catholic ones. Much of the Bible and even the Gospels is open to completely different interpretations 2000 years later. It would seem as if the Church would have clarified some things. Especially after the breakaway of the protestant revolution.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No problem. Zechariah 14:6-7 describes the 'day of the Lord", saying, “On that day there will no longer be cold or frost. There will be one continuous day—it is known to the LORD—not day and night, for in the evening there will be light.”
In verse 7, we have ‘day’, a definite number (‘one’), and ‘day’ and ‘evening.’ Yet, it does not refer to a 24-hour period, but rather, the ‘day of the Lord’ – the eschaton.
QED.
S
spockrates
Guest
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
(John 9:41)
It seems that if someone commits a sin–which I assume includes the sin of misinterpreting the Bible–yet does not know she has sinned, then such a one is not guilty, as far as God is concerned. If this premise is true than the conclusion appears logical that God allows ambiguity out of mercy and to protect people from the sin of misrepresenting holy writ.
What do you think of this first idea? If it sounds plausible to you, I’ll present the second. If it does not, please explain why you disagree so I might consider what you have to say.
Neither do I, but perhaps if we put our heads together, God will show us?
Agreed.
I’ve spent a good deal of time considering the ambiguity of scripture and discussing the topic. I have a couple of guesses as to why God allows it to sometimes be unclear, the first being this:
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
(John 9:41)
It seems that if someone commits a sin–which I assume includes the sin of misinterpreting the Bible–yet does not know she has sinned, then such a one is not guilty, as far as God is concerned. If this premise is true than the conclusion appears logical that God allows ambiguity out of mercy and to protect people from the sin of misrepresenting holy writ.
What do you think of this first idea? If it sounds plausible to you, I’ll present the second. If it does not, please explain why you disagree so I might consider what you have to say.
T
thetazlord
Guest
If two opinions conflict, then that means that at least one of the individual’s interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. This usually occurs when one’s personal opinion is imputed into the text where that opinion is not supported by Scripture. Sola scriptura avoids this.I am asserting nothing. I am observing how the Catholic Church reads scripture. It’s not mine to assert.
What if two opinions conflict? We defer to the Church. In some matters it pronounces definitively, in some it does not.
This is nothing like a post modernist view.
T
thetazlord
Guest
That’s because if you read Leviticus 17:10-14, God commands that mankind shouldn’t drink the blood of any flesh. He doesn’t limit it to strictly animals. This is why many of Jesus’ disciples left (John 6:66). They misunderstood Jesus to be speaking in literal terms, rather than than “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (John 6:63).
T
thetazlord
Guest
First, “the day of the Lord” is a term referrng to a particular future period of time of God’s judgment. Second, that verse doesn’t say the words “evening and morning.” A “continous day” - again - refers to this future time period, and again, it doesn’t say “evening & morning,” like in Genesis Ch.1: “…evening and morning the first day.” So, it’s not the same thing.
C
clem456
Guest
Right…that’s why we 35 bazillion denominations all making assertions about what the scriptures say.
You cannot possibly believe the illogical things you write.
S
spockrates
Guest
Thank you for replying.
It seems to me God does things for us he never lets us to do for him. For example, consider Abraham. God prevented him from sacrificing his own son for him, but God sacrificed his own Son for us. One might say the same for eating flesh. God never asks us to offer our flesh to preserve the mortal life of another, but he offers the flesh of his own Son to preserve our eternal life. I’m thinking God does the shocking and unthinkable as an extreme proof of his love for us. He does for us what he would never allow us ourselves to do for him.
But that aside, please tell me why you believe that when Jesus said, “the words I have spoken to you are spirit,” he actually meant, “the words I have spoken to you are [symbolic].” Are you thinking spiritual words never describe literal things?
S
Simeon_Hovey
Guest
Over 35 years I’ve been studying and studying the Bible which includes learning both the original Hebrew and the Greek [Koine].I think the first question that needs to be settled in someone’s mind is about taking the Bible literally in all cases – and if someone does think the entire work is literally true they have to believe that the Hebrews and Jews of Jesus time spoke literally.
My studies have taught me that just like we do, in both Hebrew and Greek they used words which are homonyms [sound the same], and in looking at Hebrew words dealing with the many types of sins and the various ways of expiation [Leviticus] so many written Hebrew words almost look identical. And the differences can vary from {. - _ :] just to put up the few signs that my English keyboard has.
Thus meanings can only be understood within the context of the written and spoken word and various situations that events occurred in. So just like us they spoke figuratively and one way to learn is to spend about a $1000 on several Bibles, reference books, dictionaries and encyclopedias and spend decades studying them. Which is the path I’ve followed. [Jerome’s Annotated Bible is, I think, the best single book.]
Consider Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. < From Young’s Literal [Greek] Translation; but watch out for the literal Greek and interlinear translations because Greek syntax is very different from ours; and their alphabet only has 24 characters.
Does anyone really think He means we have to hate our families and our own lives? If so how then does this reconcile with the commandments to love and respect one’s parents? The Greek word used is miseo and it can mean hate, but it also means to “love someone less” and by implication to love Jesus more than one’s family. And in the end – don’t we have to love and trust Jesus the most?
Strong’s 3404: miseo
Or for most people who don’t have the time or inclination, what this question highlights is how important it is that our priests or ministers are the ones we have to go to when we need to know.
My studies have taught me that just like we do, in both Hebrew and Greek they used words which are homonyms [sound the same], and in looking at Hebrew words dealing with the many types of sins and the various ways of expiation [Leviticus] so many written Hebrew words almost look identical. And the differences can vary from {. - _ :] just to put up the few signs that my English keyboard has.
Thus meanings can only be understood within the context of the written and spoken word and various situations that events occurred in. So just like us they spoke figuratively and one way to learn is to spend about a $1000 on several Bibles, reference books, dictionaries and encyclopedias and spend decades studying them. Which is the path I’ve followed. [Jerome’s Annotated Bible is, I think, the best single book.]
Consider Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. < From Young’s Literal [Greek] Translation; but watch out for the literal Greek and interlinear translations because Greek syntax is very different from ours; and their alphabet only has 24 characters.
Does anyone really think He means we have to hate our families and our own lives? If so how then does this reconcile with the commandments to love and respect one’s parents? The Greek word used is miseo and it can mean hate, but it also means to “love someone less” and by implication to love Jesus more than one’s family. And in the end – don’t we have to love and trust Jesus the most?
Strong’s 3404: miseo
Or for most people who don’t have the time or inclination, what this question highlights is how important it is that our priests or ministers are the ones we have to go to when we need to know.
S
Simeon_Hovey
Guest
S
Simeon_Hovey
Guest
Spockrates
Actually the “Eliminate” quote comes from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in Sherlock Holmes.
E
ericc
Guest
No, it means that both can be wrong as well. Individual interpretations always have the inherent risk that the individual understanding is flawed by his own limitations, lack of understanding, biases (I am right you are wrong), ego (I couldn’t possibly be wrong because I know everything about Scriptures) and plain disobedience.
Hence, Scriptures have wisely instituted a recourse to the Church for dispute settlement and not individuals.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, Spock quotes this ‘Sherlock Holmes’ line in one of the recent Star Trek movies. So, in a way, you’re both right.
E
edwest2
Guest
- Status