"We Believe Scripture, Except When It Supports Catholic Dogma"

[PC_Master]

Indeed, Christ’s own words at the latter portion of John 6 do speak for themselves in putting his earlier comments in context.

Jesus speaks of being the bread from heaven, and about eating his flesh. People don’t understand, and think him to be speaking something disgusting (thereby taking a fleshly interpretation). Jesus explains that the words he speaks are spirit and truth – the flesh profits nothing.

It’s all there, in black and white. Back in John 3, we have the same thing: Christ speaks of being born again. Nicodemus takes the literal (fleshly) interpretation and asks how he can be born again. Should he reenter his mother’s womb? Christ clarifies the spiritual truth he’s speaking of. Can you honestly read that passage and say that Christ was speaking of physical re-birthing? Of course not. The text doesn’t allow for it when you read it fully. Likewise, speaking of being the door, the vine, the good shepherd…the passages simply do not allow for a “hyperliteral” interpretation.

 

[rpp]

The Catholic Answers Webcam, of course.

We like to keep an eye on people in case the Grand Internet Inquisitor has any questions for them.

Shhh!!! :tsktsk: Protestants are not supposed to know about the secret Catholic webcams built into every computer and wired directly to the Inquisition in Rome. Now the secret is out!
http://bestsmileys.com/paranoid/2.gif

 

[Teflon93]

Indeed, Christ’s own words at the latter portion of John 6 do speak for themselves in putting his earlier comments in context.

Jesus speaks of being the bread from heaven, and about eating his flesh. People don’t understand, and think him to be speaking something disgusting (thereby taking a fleshly interpretation). Jesus explains that the words he speaks are spirit and truth – the flesh profits nothing.

It’s all there, in black and white. Back in John 3, we have the same thing: Christ speaks of being born again. Nicodemus takes the literal (fleshly) interpretation and asks how he can be born again. Should he reenter his mother’s womb? Christ clarifies the spiritual truth he’s speaking of. Can you honestly read that passage and say that Christ was speaking of physical re-birthing? Of course not. The text doesn’t allow for it when you read it fully. Likewise, speaking of being the door, the vine, the good shepherd…the passages simply do not allow for a “hyperliteral” interpretation.

More intepretation of Man—strictly verboten!

Anyone can read the text for themselves—it is presented above.

 

[Teflon93]

Shhh!!! :tsktsk: Protestants are not supposed to know about the secret Catholic webcams built into every computer and wired directly to the Inquisition in Rome. Now the secret is out!
http://bestsmileys.com/paranoid/2.gif

Dang it—I could never get the secret conspiracy stuff down.

Confession time for me!

 

[Spirithound]

More intepretation of Man—strictly verboten!

Anyone can read the text for themselves—it is presented above.

Well now, we can’t just ban ALL interpretation. “Interpretation” is the name rightly given to the process of understanding a text. PC Master (and a PP) has tried to understand the last part of the text, so you need to tell them precisely how their “interpretation” is “of man”.
Like so:
PC Master, whose flesh profits nothing? Christ’s?

 

[NotWorthy]

Indeed, Christ’s own words at the latter portion of John 6 do speak for themselves in putting his earlier comments in context.

Jesus speaks of being the bread from heaven, and about eating his flesh. People don’t understand, and think him to be speaking something disgusting (thereby taking a fleshly interpretation). Jesus explains that the words he speaks are spirit and truth – the flesh profits nothing.

It’s all there, in black and white. Back in John 3, we have the same thing: Christ speaks of being born again. Nicodemus takes the literal (fleshly) interpretation and asks how he can be born again. Should he reenter his mother’s womb? Christ clarifies the spiritual truth he’s speaking of. Can you honestly read that passage and say that Christ was speaking of physical re-birthing? Of course not. The text doesn’t allow for it when you read it fully. Likewise, speaking of being the door, the vine, the good shepherd…the passages simply do not allow for a “hyperliteral” interpretation.

Except of course Christ speaks of eating HIS Flesh for Eternal Life.

When Christ and St. Paul speaks of earthly (lack of) morals, he speaks of “THE flesh”, which profiteth nothing.

 

[Teflon93]

Well now, we can’t just ban ALL interpretation. “Interpretation” is the name rightly given to the process of understanding a text. PC Master (and a PP) has tried to understand the last part of the text, so you need to tell them precisely how their “interpretation” is “of man”.
Like so:
PC Master, whose flesh profits nothing? Christ’s?

drbible1611 challenged us to do this with only Scripture, so that’s what we’re doing.

It is interesting to note how Catholics, who embrace Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, have less problem addressing this argument per the terms requested than Protestants, who claim to require only Scripture, and in drbible1611’s case, only the KJV.

So I’m game.

Not one word of interpretation, just Scripture.

I want to see how the Protestant interpretation of Scripture is justified without resort to Protestant tradition or magisterium (which they often claim they do not have).

Thus I have posted John 6 from the KJV, that drbible1611 may dazzle us with his ability to interpret without resort to so much as one word not drawn straight from Scripture.

He can rest assured that I will immediately post the full context of any verse he so pulls, so be wary!

 

[mozart-250]

Feel free to call foul if either drbible1611 or myself injects so much as one word of interpretation, starting now.

Duly noted. This should be interesting. I will be an impartial referee here since I have no axe to grind either way.

I (as a referee) will allow interpretations as long as they are logically derived from the (KJV only) text. I will call foul on any interpretive statements that violate any rules of logic.

I will constrain my referee work to Teflon93 and DrBible1611 for the sake of brevity.

 

[neophyte]

…The answer to our interpretation is found in Jesus’ own summary at the end of the chapter.

John 6:60-65…The passage of John chapter 6 is self explanatory without taking a hyperliteral approach and John follows this style throughout his entire gospel…Now … if we are to ignore Jesus’ own interpretation of his words…

The problem with this response is that what Jesus said in verses 60-65 are far from being an “interpretation” of his words at all. And in the end, those who objected to the plain sense meaning of what he said in verses 35-58 still objected - which necessarily means that what he later said didn’t contradict what they first thought he meant.

A fairer assesment of the passage would be that he was discussing the state of their souls, not providing any sort of clarification of his meaning.

 

[Teflon93]

Duly noted. This should be interesting. I will be an impartial referee here since I have no axe to grind either way.

I (as a referee) will allow interpretations as long as they are logically derived from the (KJV only) text. I will call foul on any interpretive statements that violate any rules of logic.

I will constrain my referee work to Teflon93 and DrBible1611 for the sake of brevity.

I appreciate the offer, but drbible1611 specifically insisted upon Scripture alone----no interpretation.

That is the standard he held Catholics to in the originating thread----I intend to hold him to the same.

If you would care to referee and ensure that:

a) neither of us injects one word beyond what Scripture, as written, states

and

b) our references provided are in fact relevant to John 6;

that would be most helpful and appreciated.

 

[Teflon93]

And for those who weren’t in the other thread, these posts might be of interest for where the ground rules came from:

Hey, I’m not avoiding the question and I’m quite willing to debate John 6 if you have an open mind and are willing to stick with Scripture ALONE!

But if you are going to start quoting the popes, church fathers etc then I am not going to waste my time.

I take it we are going to ignore the Apocrypha question?..well, well, well…

Yup!

God only inspired and preserved one Bible for the English speaking folk THE KING JAMES BIBLE.

I would never read a version that is based on the corrupt Vaticanus manuscript which omits entire books and hundreds of verses and also contains gnostic writings eg Shepherd of Hermes.

Funny it was the Catholic church that is /was the custodian of that wonderful manuscript???

Just read the passages-it’s as simple as that-no interpretation needed.

Really, I thought the Catholic Church taught quite clearly that if you knowingly deny the church is necessary for salvation then you are hell bound. Read Council of Florence!

One of your brethren on this thread already agreed that my parish priest was correct in stating that ALL Protestants are Hell bound.

PS Don’t have such a hang up on Luther. I don’t follow a maonly Jesus Christ!

That’s fine by me but let me warn you that I was a baptised, confirmed, catechized, Mass attending and Priest confessing RC for forty years. I have read the Council of Trent, Code of Canon Law, Catechism of the Catholic Church, St Josephs Baltimore Catechism, Writings by Mr Keating, Mr Madrid, ‘Fr’ Stravinskas-I have debated Cardinal Pell of Sydney and I have witnessed to hundreds of Catholics in their homes and also in the streets. I have had the priviledge of leading a number to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. These dear brethren have thrown out their crucifixes, statues of Mary and the Saints and thank God have left the one, holy and apostolic church.

So go ahead and accuse me of not knowing what the Catholic Church teaches and what the average Catholic is truly trusting in to get to heaven.

Then you can tell me what I believe!

Well you have met one now!

I have never and never will say “My pastor says…” I will ALWAYS say “The Bible says”!

I** would suggest you try reading the Bible from cover to cover WITHOUT any footnotes and the interpretations of the Magisterium and just let the Holy Ghost be your teacher-you will be amazed by the truths you will learn.**

I don’t believe that the apostles were ‘biblical’ scholars or archeologists and yet God used them to turn the world upside down.

Read 1 Cor 1:25-31

Man, you really have a hang up on John 6.

OK, start a ‘John 6’ thread and let the battle commence!

So that’s the state of play. I have thus far granted every concession in the ground rules. I have requested none.

 

[mozart-250]

I appreciate the offer, but drbible1611 specifically insisted upon Scripture alone----no interpretation.

OK. Whatever groundrules you agree upon is fine by me.

I guess the question then is what is and is not interpretation. For example is “letting Scripture interpret Scripture” a violation of the groundrules.

 

[Teflon93]

OK. Whatever groundrules you agree upon is fine by me.

I guess the question then is what is and is not interpretation. For example is “letting Scripture interpret Scripture” a violation of the groundrules.

It would be a short discussion if it were!

I intend to explain John 6 with more Scripture, certainly—but I will not include so much as one word of extra-Scriptural interpretation.

To make it easier for people to follow links without the need for verbiage we inject, I would like the liberty of bolding and/or coloring portions of the quoted passage so as to clearly indicate how it ties to John 6.

For example, where Christ refers to the manna from heaven that the forefathers of the Jews ate in the desert, it would be logical to include the proper passages from Exodus so as to set the stage. To make it easy to see the connection, I would like to be able to bold and/or color “manna” for example.

I will not, however, explain the passage in my own words, provide a headline for it, etc. Doing so would in my opinion risk man-made interpretation.

I shall rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me selection of Scripture passages to tease out the meaning of John 6, aided by my searchable KJV.

If I so much as inject one word of my own beyond what Scripture says in my responses, please call me on it.

I will avoid even parenthetical references or titling my responses.

 

[mozart-250]

It would be a short discussion if it were!

I intend to explain John 6 with more Scripture, certainly—but I will not include so much as one word of extra-Scriptural interpretation.

To make it easier for people to follow links without the need for verbiage we inject, I would like the liberty of bolding and/or coloring portions of the quoted passage so as to clearly indicate how it ties to John 6.

For example, where Christ refers to the manna from heaven that the forefathers of the Jews ate in the desert, it would be logical to include the proper passages from Exodus so as to set the stage. To make it easy to see the connection, I would like to be able to bold and/or color “manna” for example.

I will not, however, explain the passage in my own words, provide a headline for it, etc. Doing so would in my opinion risk man-made interpretation.

I shall rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me selection of Scripture passages to tease out the meaning of John 6, aided by my searchable KJV.

If I so much as inject one word of my own beyond what Scripture says in my responses, please call me on it.

I will avoid even parenthetical references or titling my responses.

Fair enough. So “Letting Scripture Interpret Scripture” is allowed.

The issue then becomes one of making a distinction between “Scripture Interpreting Scripture” and personal opinion. One persons “Scripture Interpreting Scripture” is another persons personal opinion.

I tend to be quite narrow on “Scripture Interpreting Scripture” and only consider it valid when it follows strict rules of logic. Any violation of logical rules and then you are into personal opinion. But that’s just the way I am.

Certainly if you follow your groundrules you will never be in any foul trouble.

 

[Teflon93]

Fair enough. So “Letting Scripture Interpret Scripture” is allowed.

The issue then becomes one of making a distinction between “Scripture Interpreting Scripture” and personal opinion. One persons “Scripture Interpreting Scripture” is another persons personal opinion.

I tend to be quite narrow on “Scripture Interpreting Scripture” and only consider it valid when it follows strict rules of logic. Any violation of logical rules and then you are into personal opinion. But that’s just the way I am.

Certainly if you follow your groundrules you will never be in any foul trouble.

I agree with your take, but to be clear—not one word of non-Scripture is allowed under the ground rules drbible1611 established.

After all, I could simply claim that John 6 is a dream. It never happened; my pastor said so. Mere allegory.

Appeals to such authority, absent evidence, may be at base logical, in that they contain no fallacy per se, but are weak tea for an argument indeed.

Since drbible1611 has insisted upon Scripture Alone, Scripture Alone it will be.

If he doesn’t object to formulating these arguments by placing Scriptural passages in a form easy to evaluate as an argument, something akin to:

*28: Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? *

31: Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst

**53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. **

You can see here that I’ve illuminated an argument, with the original proposition in italics and the conclusion in bold. I haven’t injected a word of my own interpretation, merely exposed the throughline of the chapter in a concise fashion. Scripture is interpreting Scripture in the simplest sense here. I can certainly not be accused of injecting my interpretation onto it; at most, I could be challenged if I left something out, pulled something from context, etc.

 

[PC_Master]

I could go on for pages with relevant quotes (standard assortment of quotes from John, Paul, etc), but I fail to see what it would accomplish here. Teflon has demonstrated that he has an axe to grind (though I don’t yet understand why he has such animosity), and generally likes to set up straw-man arguments.

Now, if there’s someone who is sincerely interested in the words of scripture on the subject, I’d be happy to provide references.

I would, however, note that what was previously quoted – reading scripture cover to cover without footnotes or interpretations – can reveal some astonishing truths. Galatians is a great read. So is John.

 

[NotWorthy]

I would, however, note that what was previously quoted – reading scripture cover to cover without footnotes or interpretations – can reveal some astonishing truths. Galatians is a great read. So is John.

I find Tobit and Ruth to be among my favorites as well. In the NT, its got to be John and James. Hebrews is a great read, as well.

The commentary, if well done, is a great aid. For instance, it helps teach us about Jewish idioms that are unknown today. This came up the other day when reading “God loved Jacob and hated Esau”. If I didn’t know this was a Jewish idiom, I would have had trouble reconciling that God hated someone.

 

[PC_Master]

I find Tobit and Ruth to be among my favorites as well. In the NT, its got to be John and James. Hebrews is a great read, as well.

The commentary, if well done, is a great aid. For instance, it helps teach us about Jewish idioms that are unknown today. This came up the other day when reading “God loved Jacob and hated Esau”. If I didn’t know this was a Jewish idiom, I would have had trouble reconciling that God hated someone.

I can’t say I’ve ever read Tobit, though the apocrypha is certainly on my reading list (along with several works of questionable authenticity). As for idioms – yeah, they’re interesting. For example, to be kind to someone else is as if you were to heap hot coals on their head…that sounds harsh. The typical explanation I’ve heard from both Protestants and Roman Catholics alike is that mean people hate it when someone’s nice to them…never made much sense to me.

However, as it turns out, common practice in Jewish society was for individuals to carry, in a basket on their head, hot coals to each home in the community. Thus, to heap hot coals on someone’s head takes on a totally different meaning – the person carrying the coals is helping the community. Interesting, isn’t it?

This is the key – often when I accept common idiom like this, or other equally historic information, people assume that I then must accept the entire tradition of the RCC. But why must I do this? Why can I not accept some historical information, without accepting asserted traditions? (Also, note, I feel free to question whether or not such historical information is valid. Just because the Pharisees believed X historically doesn’t mean it’s valid, for example.)

 

[Teflon93]

I could go on for pages with relevant quotes (standard assortment of quotes from John, Paul, etc), but I fail to see what it would accomplish here. Teflon has demonstrated that he has an axe to grind (though I don’t yet understand why he has such animosity), and generally likes to set up straw-man arguments.

Now, if there’s someone who is sincerely interested in the words of scripture on the subject, I’d be happy to provide references.

I would, however, note that what was previously quoted – reading scripture cover to cover without footnotes or interpretations – can reveal some astonishing truths. Galatians is a great read. So is John.

More charity from PCM!

How fortunate for me that I posted drbible1611’s comments from another thread that led directly to this one.

PCM actually had the opportunity to rise to this challenge previously—in fact, an easier one: explaining just John 6:53 through Scripture ALONE—and went to great lengths to derail that thread, so sincere was his interest. You can find that thread here.

You will note that only SyCarl even attempted the challenge from the side of those who claim to believe Scripture interprets itself. I spent a considerable amount of time doing so, but my interlocutors apparently caught the vapors and spent the thread making such charitable comments as PCM has above.

Now where have you hidden drbible1611, PCM?

 

[NotWorthy]

I can’t say I’ve ever read Tobit, though the apocrypha is certainly on my reading list (along with several works of questionable authenticity). As for idioms – yeah, they’re interesting. For example, to be kind to someone else is as if you were to heap hot coals on their head…that sounds harsh. The typical explanation I’ve heard from both Protestants and Roman Catholics alike is that mean people hate it when someone’s nice to them…never made much sense to me.

However, as it turns out, common practice in Jewish society was for individuals to carry, in a basket on their head, hot coals to each home in the community. Thus, to heap hot coals on someone’s head takes on a totally different meaning – the person carrying the coals is helping the community. Interesting, isn’t it?

This is the key – often when I accept common idiom like this, or other equally historic information, people assume that I then must accept the entire tradition of the RCC. But why must I do this? Why can I not accept some historical information, without accepting asserted traditions? (Also, note, I feel free to question whether or not such historical information is valid. Just because the Pharisees believed X historically doesn’t mean it’s valid, for example.)

Although I agree with your reasoning, I disagree with your cataloging of Tobit as Apochrypha. Different thread, of course.

But back to the point, yes, it’s good to know these things, but it doesn’t necessarily mean obeisance to the rest of a Church’s teachings.