MERGED: Questions for Catholics on how we got our Bible

[Miriam1947]

I recently had an discussion with a Catholic Priest in Gate City Va. He was very graciouse and kind to me, and I have a Great Deal of respect for him for taking time out of his busy schedule to speak to a non-Catholic on some very deep questions on some of the dotrcines of the Catholic Faith. That being said one of the questions i asked him was about Transubstantiation. He gave me some very good information on it. I wanted some clarification on How the bread and wine are turned into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ: and how it MAY contradict with scripture.

So the first thing i would like calification on is “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53-54 Now if one were to take just that one verse it would almost seem that is teaching cannabilsm but if you read the versus before that i believe it clarifies it. …now i say that very humbley becuase i am quite ignorant when it come to Catholic Doctrine. I’d appreciate any repsonse on the following verses on cannabilsm.

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” Genesis 9:4

“… No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.” Leviticus 17:12

Would God ever command His children to do something He had already forbidden?

One other thing. The priest told me about the verse in John 6. where it states that it is his body and blood. Are we to take it litterly? What about when He said He was the door in John 10:7 “Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.” Does that mean that Jesus is Litery a door made of wood?(or other material?) or could it possibly be symbolic stating that He(Jesus) is the only way into Heaven? I would appreciate any clarification on it!
Thank you in advance

Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself–He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”

But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”

However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”

(Thank you Cat)

 

[snarflemike]

Perhaps this due to the fact there are no verifiable “words of God transmitted orally” that exist outside of Scripture.

What is your proof of this statement? Regarding the bible, how have your verified that it is the word of God? Since you weren’t there when Christ taught the apostles, and when the writers of the New Testament penned their works, how have you verified that the New Testament is what you believe it is?

 

[andrewstx]

I have a question, do most Bibles used by Lutherans currently still contain the DCs?

When I was investigating the ALC many years ago all the bibles contained only 66 books.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I have a question, do most Bibles used by Lutherans currently still contain the DCs?

When I was investigating the ALC many years ago all the bibles contained only 66 books.

Most Bibles used by Lutherans sadly do not contain the DCs. When the transition went from publishing in German to English, the DCs somehow were never put into the works.

I would also say that most Lutherans use the common translations that a wide variety of Christians use. And this would preclude the DCs from being there, as those are usually used found in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, and Lutherans don’t purchase those [usually] for obvious reasons.

That being said, the publishing arm of the LCMS (Concordia Publishing House) is supposed to be publishing an English version of the Apocrypha sometime in the near future, although it will be in a separate volume. Baby steps, as they say.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I have a question, do most Bibles used by Lutherans currently still contain the DCs?

When I was investigating the ALC many years ago all the bibles contained only 66 books.

German Bibles based on Luther’s translation would include them. In English, there is no Lutheran Bible, just various English translations. Concordia Publishing House, of the LCMS, is releasing the DC books in the ESV translation this fall.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

For Jesus himself gave a botanical inaccuracy, yet we still consider the book that records this as* theopneustos*, no?

Hyperbole, not inaccuracy.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Daniel relates some “court tales” of the Babylonian Captivity…and some apocalyptic writings…the “story” takes place in the 6th century BCE…it was written between the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE…400-500 years AFTER the events…not a good example of prophesy…I know many evangelicals and conservative believers like to have a much older date of writing…but the evidenc of modern scholarship points to a very late date.

To which “modern scholarship” do you refer?

 

[PRmerger]

Hyperbole, not inaccuracy.

Who determines when something is an inaccuracy and when it is hyperbole?

And if there is a similar situation in an OT text, who discerns whether it is inaccurate, hyperbole, symbolic, or historical fiction?

 

[JonNC]

Who determines when something is an inaccuracy and when it is hyperbole?

And if there is a similar situation in an OT text, who discerns whether it is inaccurate, hyperbole, symbolic, or historical fiction?

It depends on which communion you’re in. It also depends on whether the interpretation of the text has been defined doctrinally by said communion. If it hasn’t, my understanding is that even Catholics may then speculate.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

It depends on which communion you’re in. It also depends on whether the interpretation of the text has been defined doctrinally by said communion. If it hasn’t, my understanding is that even Catholics may then speculate.

Jon

So if there were, say, a “historical inaccuracy” in the OT, in your communion would that be a criterion for removal of this particular book from the canon?

 

[jlhargus]

What is your proof of this statement? Regarding the bible, how have your verified that it is the word of God? Since you weren’t there when Christ taught the apostles, and when the writers of the New Testament penned their works, how have you verified that the New Testament is what you believe it is?

JL: The word Trinity is not found in scripture but only in oral Tradition. Baptism by immersion isn’t found in scripture but only in oral Tradition.

 

[jlhargus]

Perhaps this due to the fact there are no verifiable “words of God transmitted orally” that exist outside of Scripture.

JL: The word Trinity isn’t found in scripture but only in oral Tradition. Baptism by immersion isn’t found in scripture but only in oral Tradition. The books of the bible aren’t found in scripture but only in oral Tradition. Do you not accept at lest one of these doctrines as revealed by God?

1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of US, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

[2 THES 2:14 Whereunto he called you by **OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether BY word, OR our epistle.]

I challenge you Arizona to post ONE SCRIPTURE telling us not to hold oral Tradition or ONE SCRIPTURE telling us ALL oral Tradition is now in Scripture. You won’t of course because you simply can’t. Yet I can post many scriptures telling us to HOLD TRADITIONS. Do you believe The Holy Spirit really forgot to inspire one of the writters to say don’t follow Traditions?

[2THES 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye **withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the TRADITION which he received of US.] It seems Tradition is of such importance that one who does not follow them are to be shunned. Sounds like, [Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, **TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Who determines when something is an inaccuracy and when it is hyperbole?

And if there is a similar situation in an OT text, who discerns whether it is inaccurate, hyperbole, symbolic, or historical fiction?

Because it fits the literary form of rhetorical hyperbole, which is something that the parabolic sayings of Christ appeal to often. For example, if your right hand offends you, cut it off. Jesus is not here advising his disciples to literally cut their hands off if they are tempted to sin. It is hyperbole. The only way of interpreting it as an inaccuracy is to approach the mustard seed as if Jesus is trying to communicate a horticultural fact. This is clearly not the case. He is trying to communicate that the kingdom starts very small, and will eventually grow large.

The same way we can look at other writings and deduce these kinds of literary forms, we can do with the Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

Because it fits the literary form of rhetorical hyperbole, which is something that the parabolic sayings of Christ appeal to often. For example, if your right hand offends you, cut it off. Jesus is not here advising his disciples to literally cut their hands off if they are tempted to sin. It is hyperbole. The only way of interpreting it as an inaccuracy is to approach the mustard seed as if Jesus is trying to communicate a horticultural fact. This is clearly not the case. He is trying to communicate that the kingdom starts very small, and will eventually grow large.

The same way we can look at other writings and deduce these kinds of literary forms, we can do with the Scriptures.

'zactly!

So, any type of apparent “inaccuracy” in, say, the Book of Sirach, would not be, to your thinking, a criterion for determining canonicity (or lack thereof)?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

'zactly!

So, any type of apparent “inaccuracy” in, say, the Book of Sirach, would not be, to your thinking, a criterion for determining canonicity (or lack thereof)?

If it can logically be reconciled, sure. I’m not aware of any in Sirach, unless you’re just using that as an example.

 

[JRKH]

Because it fits the literary form of rhetorical hyperbole, which is something that the parabolic sayings of Christ appeal to often. For example, if your right hand offends you, cut it off. Jesus is not here advising his disciples to literally cut their hands off if they are tempted to sin. It is hyperbole. The only way of interpreting it as an inaccuracy is to approach the mustard seed as if Jesus is trying to communicate a horticultural fact. This is clearly not the case. He is trying to communicate that the kingdom starts very small, and will eventually grow large.

The same way we can look at other writings and deduce these kinds of literary forms, we can do with the Scriptures.

Nice answer…but…
I think that there is another aspect to this discernment that must be considered.
Your response above is to PR’s question:
Who determines when something is an inaccuracy and when it is hyperbole?

And if there is a similar situation in an OT text, who discerns whether it is inaccurate, hyperbole, symbolic, or historical fiction?
(Bolding mine)

The question of, “Who determines”, speaks to the matter of - when differing understandings cause troubles in the body of Christ, “Who determines” what is true and what is false. We see this idea played out in Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem - two camps with differing ideas needing to get a resolution.
Today - and more directly to the idea of “literal v hyperbole”, there is the differing beliefs over the meaning of John 6 regarding the Eucharist.
You say above that it is a matter of discerning “the literary form”…and yet each side in the debate over John 6 will insist that they are right - literary form or no…

So then…“Who determines”…Which is correct…

According to Scripture - that would be “The Church”. (Mt 18:15-18)

Peace
James

 

[IggyAntiochus]

The question of, “Who determines”, speaks to the matter of - when differing understandings cause troubles in the body of Christ, “Who determines” what is true and what is false. We see this idea played out in Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem - two camps with differing ideas needing to get a resolution.

Jesus’ use of the mustard seed is not a doctrinal statement that requires conciliar resolution, unlike the situation in Acts 15. There is no Holy Ghost Greek. A noun is a noun, a verb is a verb, literary style is literary style.

Today - and more directly to the idea of “literal v hyperbole”, there is the differing beliefs over the meaning of John 6 regarding the Eucharist.
You say above that it is a matter of discerning “the literary form”…and yet each side in the debate over John 6 will insist that they are right - literary form or no…

The disagreement in John 6 is not the literary form that John is using, but rather, what the conclusions we draw from the text are in the matter of doctrine.

So then…“Who determines”…Which is correct…

According to Scripture - that would be “The Church”. (Mt 18:15-18)

Peace
James

I am sorry, James, but I don’t believe the Church has the divine charism to be the only caste in Christian society that can understand basic literary constructs.

 

[PRmerger]

If it can logically be reconciled, sure. I’m not aware of any in Sirach, unless you’re just using that as an example.

Yep, just an arbitrary pick of one of the DC books.

 

[JRKH]

Jesus’ use of the mustard seed is not a doctrinal statement that requires conciliar resolution, unlike the situation in Acts 15. There is no Holy Ghost Greek. A noun is a noun, a verb is a verb, literary style is literary style.

The disagreement in John 6 is not the literary form that John is using, but rather, what the conclusions we draw from the text are in the matter of doctrine.

Fair enough Iggy…I don’t want to hijack the thread into discussions over other matters…I simply wished to point out that PR’s comments asked “Who determines” and your response really did not answer this particular question.

I am sorry, James, but I don’t believe the Church has the divine charism to be the only caste in Christian society that can understand basic literary constructs.

Scripture tells us that the Church (ekklesia) has this authority. It is both taught and demonstrated in Scripture.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus’ use of the mustard seed is not a doctrinal statement that requires conciliar resolution, unlike the situation in Acts 15. There is no Holy Ghost Greek. A noun is a noun, a verb is a verb, literary style is literary style.

No, Iggy. It is quite clear that “literary style is literary style”.

Take Genesis. There is disagreement among Christian denominations about what “literary style” this was written in.

It’s not quite that obvious, as in “a noun is a noun.”

And what literary form is the Book of Daniel written in? What about Revelation?