scripture question

[grandfather]

Have you passed through the door? Tell me what happened.

What does that have to do with anything Jesus said?

How could He be a door? Does He really expect us to believe He is a door and go in and out through Him as He says? This man is crazy. What a stupid thing to say. What are we supposed to make of that? Let’s get away from Him.

I am the bread come down from heaven. My body is real food and my blood is real drink. Unless a man eats my body and drinks my blood He has no life in him.

This is a hard saying coming from the only one who has the words of eternal life. If we leave where shall we go?

But many left. They departed. They went back to their synagugues and scriptures.

He could not possibly really have meant that He was a door and we should go in and out through Him. How ludicrous! But in order to go in and out doors must be open.

He also talked about knocking for it to be open to us. Knock on what? Are you knocking? He could not have literally meant we should knock. It just makes no sense, unless ones ears are opened. Doors and ears and eyes. Some are opened and some are shut.

The ones who say they see…

You (pharisees) search the scriptures thinking that in them you will find eternal life, but I know the love of God is not in you, He said, meaning they would not find eternal life. Verily I say to you, you are going to die in your sins. Imagine hearing Jesus say that to you. Terrifying!

But they must have studied scripture very diligently, searching and not finding. No guarantee there. It happened then and it happens now.

What was the authority of the scribes, the other group that got heat? “It is written”. What is the authority of the Protestant, the sole authority? It is written.

 

[geometer]

What does that have to do with anything Jesus said?

How could He be a door? …

Never answer a question with a long sequence of questions…

 

[JonNC]

Yes, He is a door.

Yes, He is the door, but the door isn’t Him. And this, to me, differentiates between figurative and literal. Only at the Last Supper does He put His hands on the bread and say, “this is me”. That is literal, the real presence. All the figurative language is “I am this”, a different representation.

Now, the difference between ‘is’ and ‘becomes’ may have to do with the language of the mystery. Christ leaves us no clues to reckon or explain how this happens. Prior to the consecration, it is bread and wine. Then, it just is His body and blood.

Jon

 

[grandfather]

Yes, He is the door, but the door isn’t Him. And this, to me, differentiates between figurative and literal. Only at the Last Supper does He put His hands on the bread and say, “this is me”. That is literal, the real presence. All the figurative language is “I am this”, a different representation.

Now, the difference between ‘is’ and ‘becomes’ may have to do with the language of the mystery. Christ leaves us no clues to reckon or explain how this happens. Prior to the consecration, it is bread and wine. Then, it just is His body and blood.

Jon

Jon,
That is very good.

No one comes to the Father, but through the Son. A door is a portal. We go through it. We go from one room into another through a portal, a door or a gate, or from outside to inside. We go through the Son to the Father, if His words are true.

Scripture reveals answers to our questions and at the same time leads us into mystery where there are no answers, to things that are beyond our intellectual ability to comprehend. It both leaves us in wonderment and makes things clear. It allows us to see, but not see all. The sacraments do the same thing. We approach both in faith, believing. If we approach with suspicion we get nowhere.

We are finite. What we are becoming we can not see. We get foretastes of it through imagery and allegory.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
That is very good.

No one comes to the Father, but through the Son. A door is a portal. We go through it. We go from one room into another through a portal, a door or a gate, or from outside to inside. We go through the Son to the Father, if His words are true.

Scripture reveals answers to our questions and at the same time leads us into mystery where there are no answers, to things that are beyond our intellectual ability to comprehend. It both leaves us in wonderment and makes things clear. It allows us to see, but not see all. The sacraments do the same thing. We approach both in faith, believing. If we approach with suspicion we get nowhere.

We are finite. What we are becoming we can not see. We get foretastes of it through imagery and allegory.

 

[Eucharisted]

On the word “is”: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5420876&postcount=2

 

[fbl9]

Let me ask you this: The Bible that get your information from, how do you know it is really the Word of God? On whose authority do you accept it?

Please refer to the thread entittled “which OT” and ask this question there.

 

[grandfather]

Jon,

When we get into questions like the meaning of a key word in scripture and the possible interpretations that impact doctrine, what underlies this is the comcept of authority. We rely on authority to understand rightly. Scripture is a guide for us and was for the Jews in the Old Testament.

Among the Old Testament Jews there were two notions of authority. One, and the one with the most credence was the authority of the prophet. When he spoke to the people whatever message he had to convey he claimed it came from God. So he prefaced his words and possibly ended them with the term, “thus sayeth the lord”. In other words he was saying I am not telling you this. It comes from God. I am his mouthpiece, the intermediary between the people and God.

There were periods when there were no prophets. During those times there were scribes, experts that drew their authority from scripture. This was a lesser authority than a prophet. When the scribe taught he affirmed his teaching or statement with the claim, “it is written”, or “so it is written”.

Jesus came along and the Jews wanted to know by, with or under what authority He made His claims. If He were a prophet He would have said “thus sayeth…” Or He could have backed up His words with “it is written”. He did not do this. He acknowledged the prophets and scripture as being of God, but He did not invoke the authority of the prophet or scribe. Instead He said, “I say unto you”, or “verily, truly, I say”. He made Himself His own authority and the Jews did not know what to do with this entirely new concept. This guy claimed to be an authority unto Himself, The Authority.

He affirmed scripture, but rejected the authority of the scribe, it is written, and the scribes. Woe unto you scribes and pharisees. If you were blind you would have no sin, but you claim to see. You strain at gnats and swallow camels.

When we as individuals use scripture unto ourselves to personally determine doctrine for ourselves and convince others of the correctness of our personal views we become scribes. Thus it is written. When we argue over big rocks or little ones, is or becomes, is literal or figurative, the meaning of is, we are straining at spiritual gnats.

Sola scriptura makes us all scribes in all matters. Our authority is the same. We will go round and round forever. Nothing will ever be settled matter, nothing. Important doctrines critical to the faith and unity in faith, the Eucharist for example, can never be settled and new disputes will always be opened even thousands of years after the establishment of doctrine and practice that went back to the beginning. Should we baptize babies? It does not matter what the constant practice has been. What is written? The way I interpret what is written is X. Therefore I will do it my way, insisting on my personal interpretation and go my own way.

A poster defended another’s position by saying, “he considered scripture”. That is no defense. So does everyone else consider scripture. That settles nothing. We need an authority to resolve doctrinal questions. God gives us one in the Church as recorded in scripture. We either have the Church as an authority or every man and his Bible, chaos. That is what underlies this thread.

 

[geometer]

Jesus came along and the Jews wanted to know by, with or under what authority He made His claims. If He were a prophet He would have said “thus sayeth…” Or He could have backed up His words with “it is written”. He did not do this. He acknowledged the prophets and scripture as being of God, but He did not invoke the authority of the prophet or scribe. Instead He said, “I say unto you”, or “verily, truly, I say”. He made Himself His own authority and the Jews did not know what to do with this entirely new concept. This guy claimed to be an authority unto Himself, The Authority.

Jesus claimed that God his father and our father, his God and our God, is the only father, the only teacher, our sole authority. He said what the father had given him to say and do…

A poster defended another’s position by saying, “he considered scripture”. That is no defense. So does everyone else consider scripture. That settles nothing. We need an authority to resolve doctrinal questions. God gives us one in the Church as recorded in scripture. We either have the Church as an authority or every man and his Bible, chaos. That is what underlies this thread.

Why not ask God a few questions?

 

[Lmray61]

Well I started this and have read everyones take on what Christ “really” means. So many here are so knowledgeable, much more than I, and my simple words here probably show it. Well I can only imagine that Christ knew that this statement would be the most important statement he would ever make (some even left him as we all know) so I have come to my own conclusion that wouldn’t he have made it perfectly clear as to make no mistake in his meaning? Why didn’t he tell the others to come back and explain to make it perfectly clear if he was meaning it figuratively is my reasoning that helps me. Both sides have explanations that they are comfortable with to be saved in their faith. It is such a worry to so many to understand him correctly so we will be with him in heaven. But remember that God IS love …that is so deep a meaning isn’t it? He knows us by our hearts. We as Christians, both Catholic and Protestants, love God just as much as the other and desire to serve him as we understand truth. So much that it is to the point of argumentive disagreements, as if to save the other from damnation because of our refusal to accept the “truth” that both sides say they know to have.

We here on earth are mortal human beings who live by time and space. There is so much we do not know outside of our human knowledge that will be revealed to us in our next life with God. Satan is a master of confusion. He knows the truth but loves to confuse us with it so much to the point of splitting the Christian faith. This argument will go until Christ returns because both sides feel they have “the truth” and are fighting for their true love for their God with everything they believe is correct truths. We can’t hate one another for fighting for truth as we understand it! Do we all actually think that God who IS love will condemn us to hell for misunderstanding and not caring that we love him with everything that we are made of and send us to Satan? I just cannot believe that he is capable of it. He reveals himself to all of his children. GOD IS LOVE …

 

[grandfather]

Jesus claimed that God his father and our father, his God and our God, is the only father, the only teacher, our sole authority. He said what the father had given him to say and do…

Why not ask God a few questions?

He said He was His own authority. The words He used were, “I say unto you…”

We can all ask God questions as we wonder. God gave us a teaching authority. He gave authority to certain men to teach us. He may reveal things to us personally in provate revelation, but that is unreliable. We may be deceived, hallucinating, mentally ill. His revelation is to all, through His Church according to scripture. We either receive it from those to whom He entrusted it, or make up our own and have chaos, thousands of versions, no unity of mind, as commanded of us.

 

[Wesley7]

Did Christ use the term “touto gignetai” which is “this has become or turned into” or “touto esti” which means represents or stands for in his teachings when he said this is my body and blood? Please help so I can explain to someone!

It is best to leave that as a mystery of faith.

I hope this helps answer your question.

~Wesley

 

[geometer]

He said He was His own authority. The words He used were, “I say unto you…”

We can all ask God questions as we wonder. God gave us a teaching authority. He gave authority to certain men to teach us. He may reveal things to us personally in provate revelation, but that is unreliable. We may be deceived, hallucinating, mentally ill. His revelation is to all, through His Church according to scripture. We either receive it from those to whom He entrusted it, or make up our own and have chaos, thousands of versions, no unity of mind, as commanded of us.

Well, if you are so agnostic, then why do you bother? If one can not know God, what is the point of going through the motions?

If you believe that you can not know God why do you believe that anyone else has?

 

[grandfather]

Well, if you are so agnostic, then why do you bother? If one can not know God, what is the point of going through the motions?

If you believe that you can not know God why do you believe that anyone else has?

Well, last time I checked I was not an agnostic. I am a Catholic to the very best of my knowledge. I believe we can know God. In fact the purpose for which we are made is to know and love God.

But that is not the same as asking God questions, as individuals, which is a fine thing to do, but not the means by which we know the truths He reveals.

If a hundred people all claiming to be Christians, or a thousand, asked God a question, how many different answers (denominations) might we end up with? That is not the means He proscribes for us to know truth. God does not explain the details of His plan of salvation (is or becomes) to each of us, or leave us to our own means to figure out the different points of theology and get it right, even with the help of the Bible. We don’t have to do that. He does not hoild us responsible for that. We are held responsible to love one another and Him, not to make or win arguements, but to love. The answers are given, but we insist on the right to do it on our own, and make up our minds for ourselves on anything and everything, or some do.

So we have theological and moral chaos in our society and can not even figure out any longer that men marry women much less whether a Greek word in scripture means is or becomes.

 

[Lmray61]

did either of you happen to read my post #30?

 

[geometer]

did either of you happen to read my post #30?

Yes I read your post, although, I don’t believe that I have answers for your questions.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Interesting statement. If it IS HIS body then when did it become HIS body?? Clearly there had to be a time when it was just bread. Or was the bread always Christ’s body?? If it was bread then it had to at sometime “become” Christ’s body. This is the problem with twisting the meaning of the seder meal. Christ was not using language to insinuate a change in the elements of bread and wine. That’s why HE states the cup is the new covenant in HIS blood. It’s not a cup of HIS blood. The covenant is in HIS blood symbolized by the cup. Christ used the cup of redemption or 3rd cup of wine which is red wine mixed with warm water taken after the seder meal symbolizing the blood of the lambs slain prior to the Exodus. But now as Christ states the cup of redemption is represented by HIS blood which is the final sacrifice for our sins. Hence the inception of the new covenant. There’s no language at all which implies the bread changed. It’s still bread but now it has a new meaning.

PEACE

Christ is God. When God says “This IS my blood… This IS my body” then that is what it means.

When Christ broke the bread at the feeding of the 5000, it multiplied. He’s not limited to our ordinary human contexts. When He broke the bread, then in the ordinary literal human sense there were two smaller pieces where before there had been one single bigger piece.

In actual fact they became thousands of pieces.

There is some sort of miraculous process going on when the wine and bread is blessed by the priest. Before that it is just wine and bread.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

When we get into questions like the meaning of a key word in scripture and the possible interpretations that impact doctrine, what underlies this is the comcept of authority. We rely on authority to understand rightly. Scripture is a guide for us and was for the Jews in the Old Testament.

Among the Old Testament Jews there were two notions of authority. One, and the one with the most credence was the authority of the prophet. When he spoke to the people whatever message he had to convey he claimed it came from God. So he prefaced his words and possibly ended them with the term, “thus sayeth the lord”. In other words he was saying I am not telling you this. It comes from God. I am his mouthpiece, the intermediary between the people and God.

There were periods when there were no prophets. During those times there were scribes, experts that drew their authority from scripture. This was a lesser authority than a prophet. When the scribe taught he affirmed his teaching or statement with the claim, “it is written”, or “so it is written”.

Jesus came along and the Jews wanted to know by, with or under what authority He made His claims. If He were a prophet He would have said “thus sayeth…” Or He could have backed up His words with “it is written”. He did not do this. He acknowledged the prophets and scripture as being of God, but He did not invoke the authority of the prophet or scribe. Instead He said, “I say unto you”, or “verily, truly, I say”. He made Himself His own authority and the Jews did not know what to do with this entirely new concept. This guy claimed to be an authority unto Himself, The Authority.

He affirmed scripture, but rejected the authority of the scribe, it is written, and the scribes. Woe unto you scribes and pharisees. If you were blind you would have no sin, but you claim to see. You strain at gnats and swallow camels.

When we as individuals use scripture unto ourselves to personally determine doctrine for ourselves and convince others of the correctness of our personal views we become scribes. Thus it is written. When we argue over big rocks or little ones, is or becomes, is literal or figurative, the meaning of is, we are straining at spiritual gnats.

Sola scriptura makes us all scribes in all matters. Our authority is the same. We will go round and round forever. Nothing will ever be settled matter, nothing. Important doctrines critical to the faith and unity in faith, the Eucharist for example, can never be settled and new disputes will always be opened even thousands of years after the establishment of doctrine and practice that went back to the beginning. Should we baptize babies? It does not matter what the constant practice has been. What is written? The way I interpret what is written is X. Therefore I will do it my way, insisting on my personal interpretation and go my own way.

A poster defended another’s position by saying, “he considered scripture”. That is no defense. So does everyone else consider scripture. That settles nothing. We need an authority to resolve doctrinal questions. God gives us one in the Church as recorded in scripture. We either have the Church as an authority or every man and his Bible, chaos. That is what underlies this thread.

As you know, the issue of authority is perhaps the single most important one between Rome and all other Christian traditions, including Orthodoxy. For Lutheranism, it may be matched by Justification. Yet, I believe that in Protestantism, Lutherans, along with Anglicanism, are best positioned to dialogue on the issue of authority, as we too see authority vested in the Church - bind and loose, feed my sheep, etc.

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

I frequently use this quote from Martin Chemnitz because it helps distinguish what we believe about interpretation as different from American Evangelicalism.

So, the questions are, who today has the authority to say, “verily, verily, I say unto you”? And where does that authority come from? Is it the Bishop of Rome? The Magisterium? What about the patriarchs of Orthodoxy? Were they not considered equal with the Roman Bishop in the early Church?
Maybe authority is in ecumenical councils. When was the last truly ecumenical council?

In short, you won’t get an argument from me that the faith would be better off with one single authority, and that personal interpretation often leads to error. Problem is, the question of who has authority predates Luther by 500 years, and I’ll be honest in saying I think Orthodoxy has a view of authority that looks much more like the pre-schism Church than Rome’s does. IOW, authority is often questioned when the actions by authority are questionable.

Finally, speaking only for myself, but I think others would share it, were Rome and Orthodoxy to resolve this issue between them, I would consider it such an undeniable sign from the Holy Spirit, that I could not resist it.

Jon

 

[grandfather]

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

Pardon me please for being picky with words. “We also gratefully and reverently use the labors”. The key word here is “use”. It reveals that the person making inquiry into matters of faith is not “relying” on something, but using it to make his own determination. That may be scripture alone, or scripture through the lens of other commentaries. With either method I am still making up my own mind. I am independent, apart. If you and I come to agreement on whatever matter is at hand, fine and well. If not, we separate.

Surely, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction in the second statement above. This is history not theology. Luther invented for himself (novel) meanings which conflict and contradict all that came before him in the Church, even on very basic matters like the sacraments.

So, the questions are, who today has the authority to say, “verily, verily, I say unto you”? And where does that authority come from?

The question is not “who today”. The issue is “who always”, yesterday, today and tomorrow, until the end of time. The authority comes from God. Jesus ordained it as it is recorded in scripture in the instructions He gave and the promises He made. We either have unity or chaos in civilization. Ultimately as history plays out there is no in between. If we get chaos it is a result of going off the right path and following false ideas, false understandings. That is the consequence of error.

Is it the Bishop of Rome? The Magisterium?

What does scripture say about Peter? In history, from antiquity until the schism, what did the bishops of the east say about the bishop of Rome? They called for his intervention in disputes, to settle them, acknowledging his supreme authority over the Church. This is not simply a theological matter. It is recorded history. The Orthodox have the apostles without Peter. Do you think they are divided, or can be?

What about the patriarchs of Orthodoxy? Were they not considered equal with the Roman Bishop in the early Church?

They clearly recognized Rome as the ultimate authority, although today Orthodox deny it.

Maybe authority is in ecumenical councils. When was the last truly ecumenical council?

What is more important to understand the concept is, when was the first.

In short, you won’t get an argument from me that the faith would be better off with one single authority, and that personal interpretation often leads to error. Problem is, the question of who has authority predates Luther by 500 years, and I’ll be honest in saying I think Orthodoxy has a view of authority that looks much more like the pre-schism Church than Rome’s does. IOW, authority is often questioned when the actions by authority are questionable.

This is really true, but it is not isolated to proclamations of dogma by popes, or whether the dogmatic defintiions over time are all true or not This thread began with an attempt to interpret Jesus words, of which Peter said, “this is a difficult saying”. So we are still questioning, find questionable, even the words of Jesus. Who can tell us what they mean?

Finally, speaking only for myself, but I think others would share it, were Rome and Orthodoxy to resolve this issue between them, I would consider it such an undeniable sign from the Holy Spirit, that I could not resist it.

Jon

Let’s all pray for that day when we are all visibly, obediently, one in Him and lift one voice to heaven.

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;5427254]Pardon me please for being picky with words. “We also gratefully and reverently use the labors”. The key word here is “use”. It reveals that the person making inquiry into matters of faith is not “relying” on something, but using it to make his own determination. That may be scripture alone, or scripture through the lens of other commentaries. With either method I am still making up my own mind. I am independent, apart. If you and I come to agreement on whatever matter is at hand, fine and well. If not, we separate.

Surely, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction in the second statement above. This is history not theology. Luther invented for himself (novel) meanings which conflict and contradict all that came before him in the Church, even on very basic matters like the sacraments.

I don’t know if you are being picky or not, since I don’t know the German from where this came, and the nuances involved in the translation. I understand your point, however. Indeed, the Orthodox will say, at least one here has said, that If “you and I come to agreement on whatever matter is at hand, fine and well. If not, we separate” is characteristic of Luther because it is characteristic of Rome, and therefore, all of western Christianity. You and I may both bristle at that, but it is true that Rome’s development of understanding has resulted in the separation of Old Catholics, PNCC, etc., and I guess others since the Reformation era. We could say that Rome invented for itself (novel) meanings in papal infallibility, IC, Transubstantiation, etc. It is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder.

The question is not “who today”. The issue is “who always”, yesterday, today and tomorrow, until the end of time. The authority comes from God. Jesus ordained it as it is recorded in scripture in the instructions He gave and the promises He made. We either have unity or chaos in civilization. Ultimately as history plays out there is no in between. If we get chaos it is a result of going off the right path and following false ideas, false understandings. That is the consequence of error.

You are correct, and I phrased the question poorly. And I agree with this.

What does scripture say about Peter? In history, from antiquity until the schism, what did the bishops of the east say about the bishop of Rome? They called for his intervention in disputes, to settle them, acknowledging his supreme authority over the Church. This is not simply a theological matter. It is recorded history. The Orthodox have the apostles without Peter. Do you think they are divided, or can be?
They clearly recognized Rome as the ultimate authority, although today Orthodox deny it.

Indeed, they viewed the Bishop of Rome as first among equals, but his jurisdiction was in the west. I think the Orthodox have denied this for longer than simple today (recently).

This is really true, but it is not isolated to proclamations of dogma by popes, or whether the dogmatic defintiions over time are all true or not This thread began with an attempt to interpret Jesus words, of which Peter said, “this is a difficult saying”. So we are still questioning, find questionable, even the words of Jesus. Who can tell us what they mean?

Good question.

Let’s all pray for that day when we are all visibly, obediently, one in Him and lift one voice to heaven.

Let’s also pray for the Holy Spirit to guide us to the visable unity, and our open hearts to
allow Him to do so.

Blessings, my friend.
Jon