Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[EdOsiecki]

But of course I don’t want to deter you from answering the first question, Ginger. So before you tell us which of the ‘cults’ of the Reformation had managed to evade the evil Catlicks from the time of the apostles on,

Please answer the question about John 6.

Scripturally speaking. . .Christians disagree over whether the scripture is meant to be Jesus speaking in a LITERAL or figurative sense regarding his flesh as food.

So please tell us, whose interpretation is correct, and why. And remember, some Protestant Christians believe it’s literal and some believe it’s figurative, so it isn’t just a ‘Catholic/Protestant’ question.

Hi Tanturn ergo, Thanks for your reply. Your question concerning John 6, was Jesus speaking about eating His flesh literally or figuratively? If one stops to read John 6 at verse 59, like twb1621 does on post 965, the question isn’t answered. However, if you continue to read past verse 59 to verse 63, Jesus states" The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing, The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life." To me, It seems very clear that the words that Jesus had just spoken are SPIRIT and are NOT to be taken LITERALLY. I see no reason for any question do you? ED O

 

[EdOsiecki]

continued from previous post…

---

***Matthew 26: “***26 14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

***Mark 14: ***22 7 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed 8 for many. 25 Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

***Luke 22:***14 When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles. 15 He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover 5 with you before I suffer, 16 for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." 17 Then he took a cup, 6 gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 7 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.”

Luke 24:*** “******30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. 31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. 32 Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?” 33 So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them 34 who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!” ***

***1 Corinthians 10:***16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 18 Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 of what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, 8 not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. 21 We cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. We cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. 22 Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he?

***1 Corinthians 11:***22 Do we not have houses in which we can eat and drink? Or do we show contempt for the church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you. 23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.”

,

Hi twb1621, thanks for your reply. Yes the Scriptures you quote do concern the breaking of bread. (Eucharist for Catholics and Communion for Protestants) In Acts. 2:46, Acts 5;42, Acts 20:7, Col 4:15 and Phil 1:1 the believers (no ordained priests) met in small groups in homes to break bread. It was done as Jesus states in remenbrance of Him. In Communion we celebrate our Passover Jesus the Lamb as the Jews celebrate their Passover exodus from Egypt. It happened once in past history. That’s why Paul states in Heb 9:28, “so Christ was sacrificed ONCE to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.” That’s easy for me to understand. ED O.

 

[StrawberryJam]

How many years will it take before all you christians can get along, let alone agree on any thing. ? How many more years will it take?

I can not understand all this contention.

It all seems so beside the very point.

Believers in God should get along I tell myself. But, why is that such an odd thought today?

Why?

 

[Tomb54]

(reponse to Ginger) Don’t think I am trying to target you because I am not and you are far from alone in this, but where did this “believing in basic principles” theory come from? A Christian MUST accept and have faith in the Word of God which is not flexible for us to choose to adapt to what we can accept or can believe. There is nothing even close in scripture that gives even the slightest inkling that as long as we follow the basic principles, its all good. This is the thought process we have lived with for the last 50 years and look at where it has lead. Jesus is the Word and His word is our salvation, there are no basics.

Like Tanner said there are Primary essential that all Protestants (Christians as he quoted) must believe and then you have secondary essential and then 2 other categories, I can’t remember, that are optional based on your interpretation of the bible. Only problem was we were finding Protestants that had differences of opinion of what the primary list contained. This approach while an attempt to find common ground brings Christianity down to a minimalist level of beliefs and does not contain the fullness of Truth. But at least it does contain some truth and guidance to Christ so better than nothing.

 

[Ginger2]

REALLY???

You ARE going to show us proof of your statement, right?

How about a list of those ‘cults’ and the proof of their existence in Apostolic times?

Here are a few:

Arianism denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Docetism* says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body.* He only seemed to be human to us.
Gnosticism … Bel…, Ba’al…, the unamed god Paul used to teach about Jesus in Athens…, etc. etc.

All these heresies and more, have their roots in the early days of the Christian Church and some before. Their counter-parts are found in the false churches of today often with new variables.

Christian, Protestant churches do not adhere to any of these falsehoods, but Catholics like to lump them all together and refer to ML as the source.

Ginger

 

[Tomb54]

,

Hi twb1621, thanks for your reply. Yes the Scriptures you quote do concern the breaking of bread. (Eucharist for Catholics and Communion for Protestants) In Acts. 2:46, Acts 5;42, Acts 20:7, Col 4:15 and Phil 1:1 the believers (no ordained priests) met in small groups in homes to break bread. It was done as Jesus states in remenbrance of Him. In Communion we celebrate our Passover Jesus the Lamb as the Jews celebrate their Passover exodus from Egypt. It happened once in past history. That’s why Paul states in Heb 9:28, “so Christ was sacrificed ONCE to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.” That’s easy for me to understand. ED O.

If it was spiritual and not literal then how could you bring condemnation upon yourself for not discerning the Body and Blood in the Bread and Wine?? About in homes I will have to find it (need to get to work) but the community elected an elder (priest) who was then consecrated by a bishop (early on an Apostle) to offer this breaking of bread. Yes our Eucharist as the Jewish passover are tied together and as they believe we believe that in doing this we are present during the actual event so as to remember and participate in what took place. Might not have the wording exact but I am sure more knowledgeable Catholic can correct my errors in how I am saying it. Earlier post said it better.

 

[Ginger2]

Christians disagree over whether the scripture is meant to be Jesus speaking in a LITERAL or figurative sense regarding his flesh as food.

So please tell us, whose interpretation is correct, and why. And remember, some Protestant Christians believe it’s literal and some believe it’s figurative, so it isn’t just a ‘Catholic/Protestant’ question.

OK, but first you explain it so that everyone can understand. Oops, the Catholic Church says it is a mystery that cannot fully be understood by the human mind. It was unfair of me to ask you to do what the Pope cannot.

In light of this fact, why do you insist Protestants fully and perfectly understand this sacrament when the Pope has said it is not possible?

Perfect understanding is not a requirement to salvation.

For the record, I believe in the real presence.

 

[Ginger2]

All true. But Luther did the most damage by proposing the 2 Solas. Once that doctrine was in place it became a free for all. In big or little ways, protestants are separated from Christ’s church. Christ did not intend it this way. He founded only one Church.

At the very root of the Protestant revolt is the I/Me/Myself mentality. Northing more than pride.

Luther didn’t create new doctrines. This has already been proven.

But here’s another proof:
"…Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" - Martin Luther

I am convinced Catholics made up these stories to intentionally discredit ML. Funny thing is, is wasn’t necessary. We can always dig up dirt on anyone - we don’t need to embellish or make things up.

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

Luther did create the sola scriptura concept, though, even if he agrees with the Church on faith and works. And Luther removed 7 books from the OT that had been part of the Canon for over 1000 years because they didn’t agree with his philosophical bent.

Since that modification of the Truths of the Church, Protestants have further fractured and split until there isn’t even consistency of doctrine or liturgy from one Protestant church to the next.

The Catholic Church retains the Truth as it has from the beginning. The Catholic Church is like All in the Family. The various Protestant churches are like Maude and the Jeffersons, spinoffs that don’t quite measure up to the original.

 

[Ginger2]

… but where did this “believing in basic principles” theory come from? … .

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mar 5:36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith …**Be not afraid, only believe. **

Mar 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, **all things [are] possible to him that believeth. **

Mar 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, **believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them]. **

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe;

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] **to them that believe on his name: **

Jhn 5:38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.

**Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. **

Since believing is stressed as so very important, it seems obvious there must be something we are supposed to believe.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for **if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins. **

The basic doctrines which we must believe are those that tell us who Jesus is.

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

As far as the Eucharist goes, it is accepted as the body and blood of Christ by the Church since the first century, Polycarp writes about it in 80AD, Ignatius in 104-7AD. They both agree it is what the Catholic Church asserts that it is. When men who knew the Apostles and studied under them tell us these things, we must assume they are true as belief in the very early Church. Scripture also tells us again and again that we must partake of the bread of life.

And because there is no explanation we can understand for this miracle does not make it any less real. It is a mystery in the sam e way God Himself is, but we believe in Him, don’t we? He is all powerful, so the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ is accepted as His will. We don’t need to know How God does it, only that He does.

 

[Ginger2]

Luther did create the sola scriptura concept, though, even if he agrees with the Church on faith and works. And Luther removed 7 books from the OT that had been part of the Canon for over 1000 years because they didn’t agree with his philosophical bent.

Thank you for acknowledging Luther didn’t create SF.

He didn’t create SS, either v- at least not as Catholics define it.

Below is the quote Catholics used to prove ML invented SS.

Luther: “Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or … by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

Notive Luther did not say Scriptures only, but also included reasoning.

I cut out this portion to ensure his statement be clear to the reader: “(since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves)”

And finally, Luther did not remove the seven books. He appended them as Jerome did. Luther acknowledged the same canon the church claims to have used for over 1000 years.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

As far as the Eucharist goes, it is accepted as the body and blood of Christ by the Church since the first century, …

And because there is no explanation we can understand for this miracle does not make it any less real. It is a mystery in the same way God Himself is, but we believe in Him, don’t we? He is all powerful, so the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ is accepted as His will. We don’t need to know How God does it, only that He does.

I agree!

 

[estesbob]

Thank you for acknowledging Luther didn’t create SF.

He didn’t create SS, either v- at least not as Catholics define it.

Below is the quote Catholics used to prove ML invented SS.

Luther: “Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or … by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

Notive Luther did not say Scriptures only,** but also included reasoning**.

Who’s reasoning?

 

[twb1621]

,

Hi twb1621, thanks for your reply. Yes the Scriptures you quote do concern the breaking of bread. (Eucharist for Catholics and Communion for Protestants) In Acts. 2:46, Acts 5;42, Acts 20:7, Col 4:15 and Phil 1:1 the believers (no ordained priests) met in small groups in homes to break bread. It was done as Jesus states in remenbrance of Him. In Communion we celebrate our Passover Jesus the Lamb as the Jews celebrate their Passover exodus from Egypt. It happened once in past history. That’s why Paul states in Heb 9:28, “so Christ was sacrificed ONCE to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.” That’s easy for me to understand. ED O.

Thanks for your response Ed, Acts. 2: 42 8 they devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. 43 Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. (Acts 5;42) (Acts 20:7) (Col 4:15) I do not understand what you are trying to say here. If you are referring to the Eucharist being transformed to the Body and Blood of Christ by the faithful rather than the Apostles or their assigned, not one of these verses support anything of the sort.

Heb 9:28 Again, I do not understand the point you are making.

 

[twb1621]

How many years will it take before all you christians can get along, let alone agree on any thing. ? How many more years will it take?

I can not understand all this contention.

It all seems so beside the very point.

Believers in God should get along I tell myself. But, why is that such an odd thought today?

Why?

Your point is valid but you must consider one thing. The reason we are all here is to discuss or bebate and hopefully learn. Sometimes frustration and pride get in the way for some of us because we have the weaknesses of humanity and no one wants to learn their faith may be distorted, especially when their family members have been of that faith aosl. But most of us here regardless of what Christian Faith we are of, believe in the salvation of Christ. The rest will one day be resolved we pray.

 

[twb1621]

Like Tanner said there are Primary essential that all Protestants (Christians as he quoted) must believe and then you have secondary essential and then 2 other categories, I can’t remember, that are optional based on your interpretation of the bible. Only problem was we were finding Protestants that had differences of opinion of what the primary list contained. This approach while an attempt to find common ground brings Christianity down to a minimalist level of beliefs and does not contain the fullness of Truth. But at least it does contain some truth and guidance to Christ so better than nothing.

Such an acceptance of levels is a denial of “…One God, One Faith, One Baptism” for there can not be one faith with varied levels of principles.

 

[twb1621]

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mar 5:36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith …**Be not afraid, only believe. **

Mar 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, **all things [are] possible to him that believeth. **

Mar 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, **believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them]. **

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe;

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] **to them that believe on his name: **

Jhn 5:38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.

**Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. **

Since believing is stressed as so very important, it seems obvious there must be something we are supposed to believe.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for **if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins. **

The basic doctrines which we must believe are those that tell us who Jesus is.

I understand what you are saying, but show me where a diverse belief system, which is what this implies, is supported by any Biblical verse. To “believe” in “basic principles” is nothing more than selective beliefs and not a fullness of Faith in the full teachings of Christ. It is a “basic principles” system that has Christians voting in support of champions of abortion thinking they are removed from the direct responsibility.

Ephesians CH4; 1 1 I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, 3 **striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: 4 2 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. **

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, Ginger, we are discussing not the Eucharist in itself but the fact that there is a disputation over whether Scripture here in John 6 is to be accepted literally or figuratively.

For the first 1500 years of Christian history, Christians in ‘good standing’ (that is, non heretics such as your Arians etc.) held to a consistent teaching that the words were to be taken literally. The Real Presence. (In fact we can’t find any examples of a persistent group teaching the contrary, still less the existence of that same group’s descendants in the ensuing generations. Oh, we have semi-pelagians today just as they did in the 7th century. . .but they are not descendants the way that today’s Methodist, for example, can trace his/her patrimony back to great great great great grandpa’s conversion in 1784. Today’s heretics spring up like Myrmidians in single generations. But that’s another thread.

To return to the topic, For the last 500 years of Christian history, Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants continue to accept that teaching, but many other Protestants have insisted instead that this is a ‘figurative’ speech.

Now you tell us that you ‘accept’ the literal meaning. But many of your fellow Protestants would oppose your understanding of Scripture.

So. . . why is your interpretation right and not theirs? You know of course that I agree with you on the Real Presence though quite possibly our understanding of what it is might not tally in all respects–but then again, you and I disagree on many other Scriptural passages. Why is it that we can agree on some (even on some passages in which your fellow Protestants disagree with you) and not all? And in the disagreement, why would you insist that your understanding of the passages(s) was correct, and not mine?

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

“teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” is the operative phrase.

And only incredibly bad grammatical skills on the part of a translator could so horribly dissect a sentence to mean that Peter, who was being addressed by Christ as the rock, was not the object rock at the end of the same sentence. Almost no scriptural interpretation supports that kind of convoluted reworking of the sentence. It’s a cheesy work around to avoid the obvious and doesn’t hold water.

By the way, if the Catholic Church isn’t the original early Church, where is this mysterious body? Where are their writings, their churches, their legacy? They certainly left no mark.

The Catholic Church on the other hand has the writings of the early Church fathers, the catacombs, scripture, historical accounts and more to tell us they were there at the beginning. The Catholic Church is the same Church of the gospels, the Church of Ignatius, Iranaes and Polycarp as well as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Peter and Paul.

No obfuscation of Scripture can change that fact.