What are the Most Misunderstood Bible Verse(s)

[QuickCat]

No unsaved person will go into the kingdom, but babies will be born who will grow up and refuse the “so great salvation” that is offered. Their sin will not be tolerated and they will suffer the harsh judgement of the Lord Jesus Christ as a rod of iron.

Consider this:

[1] Our wonderful Lord spent His last 40 days on earth teaching about this earthly kingdom from the O.T. Scriptures.
[2] He opened the apostles understanding of these Scriptures.
[3] They asked, "Will you, AT THIS TIME, restore again the kingdom to Israel? He had not revealed to them the time element, so He told them that the timing was in the hands of the Father.
[4] Peter actually offers the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to establoish the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21. Contingent, of course, upon their repentance and acceptance of the Lord as their Messiah.

There are myriads of O.T. and N.T. Scriptures that testify of this coming kingdom for Israel.

Grace and Peace,
QC

 

[adrift]

No unsaved person will go into the kingdom, but babies will be born who will grow up and refuse the “so great salvation” that is offered. Their sin will not be tolerated and they will suffer the harsh judgement of the Lord Jesus Christ as a rod of iron.

Consider this:

[1] Our wonderful Lord spent His last 40 days on earth teaching about this earthly kingdom from the O.T. Scriptures.

Your adding that He taught them from O.T. Scriptures. It is clear that He opened their minds to OT

27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.

Jesus did this in a few hours.

appearing to them over the course of forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

I am quite sure that Jesus did not exclusively speak of the Kingdom from Scripture.

[2] He opened the apostles understanding of these Scriptures.

I agree

[3] They asked, "Will you, AT THIS TIME, restore again the kingdom to Israel? He had not revealed to them the time element, so He told them that the timing was in the hands of the Father.

Before Jesus departed from the earth, the apostles asked, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) No timeline was given. Just as ancient Israel was tempted to despair awaiting the coming of the Messiah, so must Christians struggle alike awaiting the return of the Messiah. When all is completed, Jesus will descend from Heaven with all his citizens (Matt 25:31; Mark 14:62; 1 Thess 3:13) and rule over the perfect eternal nation. Faithlessness, sin, and death will never be seen again. The promised Kingdom of Israel is not from below but from above.

We can see that sin will cease to exist.

[4] Peter actually offers the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to establoish the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21. Contingent, of course, upon their repentance and acceptance of the Lord as their Messiah.

There are myriads of O.T. and N.T. Scriptures that testify of this coming kingdom for Israel.

No one disputes that Jesus will return. It is part of the Apostles Creed.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Nicene Creed

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end

Jesus return is not at question but that is when sin will be forgiven is. You have presented no evidence that is what was meant.
It makes no sense that the power to forgive sins

And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Would occur at this time:shrug:

 

[joe370]

Okay, Pork. I have taken cover in my concrete bunker. Are you ready?

Here it comes.
Hey Jon. I am OK with the confession/profession thing just as the CC is. However, Jesus still said: you are rock and on this rock I will build my church. Grammatically speaking, Jesus’ church is built on rock, as opposed to Peter’s profession. I’m trying to see what you are seeing but it just ain’t happening. LOL…The attachment seems rather straightforward. Perhaps you could identify the misunderstanding? If I said: this is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast, you wouldn’t think that the mast was going to be built on something else - right? To be honest, the idea that Jesus’ church is built on Simon’s profession (you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God) made absolutely no sense to me as a former non-catholic; it still does not. It would if Jesus had said something like: You are Kepha and on your confession/profession I will build my church, but nothing even remotely close to that, is mentioned.

What I see is: Jesus asking a question; the Father revealing the answer to Simon, causing him to answer Jesus’ question, followed by Jesus’ response, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

Next, we see a name change from Simon to Rock.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Logically, it was because of Simon’s confession or profession that Jesus renamed him Rock and told him that His church would be built on Rock. Verse 16 is isolated from verse 18. Jesus’ church being built on Rock is based on the fact that Simon confessed the following: You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God - yes, no maybe?

 

[joe370]

Okay, Pork. I have taken cover in my concrete bunker. Are you ready?

Here it comes.
If the rock , in large measure, is St. Peter’s confession of faith, then why change Simon’s name to Rock? No one has ever answered that question, when asked…

If someone asked us why God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, an answer could be readily provided: God’s plan was to make Abram the father of a multitude; therefore God gave Abram a new name:

“No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.”

Jesus giving Simon the name Rock, just because God revealed the true nature of Jesus to Simon, makes no sense to me. A Name change, given by God, signifies a new role for the person receiving the new name - right?

Regarding Abram, the name change signified the fact that Abraham was to be the father of many nations. Regarding Simon, the name change signified what?

 

[joe370]

Okay, Pork. I have taken cover in my concrete bunker. Are you ready?

Here it comes.
Also, I think it’s worth noting, as you know: no one, except God, was specifically called rock. Moreover, the word rock was never used as a proper name for anyone other than God. Therefore, doesn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that the name change from Simon to Rock indicated that Jesus was entrusting Rock with an authoritative mission/role, in His stead? Jesus of course being the divine Rock on which His church is built.

 

[joe370]

Oh yeah…I agree, Jon. Firstly it definitely is based on his confession of faith, so that is tied into it. What I think is at issue is what “rock” in “upon this rock” means. That, I believe, refers to Peter himself and not his confession. The fact that he is the rock, though, is based on his confession.

Needless to say, I don’t think it has anything to do with the modern notion of the papacy, infallibility, etc. The fact that the majority of the church fathers do not interpret Peter as the rock contradicts the claims of Vatican I that it has “always and everywhere been believed.”

Perhaps you could support the following claim; it would make it more believable: “the majority of the church fathers do not interpret Peter as the rock.”

I have a pretty exhaustive list of the of ECF claims regarding the matter. Any Church father that referenced Peter’s confession also admitted that Jesus’ church is built on Peter.

 

[joe370]

It doesn’t quantify anything, johnny. There’s absolutely nothing in the passage (or in the whole gospel for that matter) to connect it to the Last Supper.

Jesus said: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink…

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

You believe that these words have nothing to do with the last supper? If so then what is Jesus talking about? My sister interprets those verses this way, and it makes no sense to me:

For my flesh (the word) is real food and my blood (the word) is real drink.

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man (read the word) and drink his blood, (read the word) you have no life in you.”

Do you agree with her?

 

[joe370]

Gaelic Bard;10284266]No. I am saying they (mis) understood him to be saying that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in a carnal way. He didnt clear this up because he knew they were looking for him to perform a magic trick and give them more food. .

So, in your opinion, Jesus was speaking in metaphor the whole time and the grumblers wrongly thought that he was speaking literally? You said: Jesus didn’t clear this up because he knew they were looking for him to perform a magic trick and give them more food. That makes no sense to me. So, if Jesus would have corrected the grumblers, telling them that he is only speaking in metaphor then he would have been forced to perform a magic trick and give them more food? Why couldn’t Jesus simply correct them and refuse to perform any more miracles? BTW, you meant miracles as opposed to magic tricks?

Jesus had six opportunities to correct them. However, He continued to reinforce His claims each time they complained, with more compelling language, in terms of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Surely Jesus would have been obligated to correct their misinterpretations so that they would possess His clear truth, before choosing to either accept or reject it - right? By not offering any corrections, (something he did not do), Jesus either left them with an erroneous understanding, thus rendering them guiltless for rejecting His teaching because they did not possess the truth. After all, if you are right then the grumblers lacked the necessary information required to make a clear and informed decision. Or, Jesus told the truth six times, each time they grumbled, and those who heard Him discerned correctly all six times, meaning that the grumblers, at that point, possessed the truth and the necessary information to accept or reject Him; in the end they chose to reject Jesus’ hard teaching. The implications of the latter: Jesus was not remiss. If you are correct then sadly Jesus was negligent, careless, and ineffectual in performing His ministerial duties as God, teacher and Messiah.

On the other hand…your view has Jesus making the statement, a bunch of unbelievers understanding perfectly what he means and then Jesus never even coming close to mentioning communion…but still holding them responsible?

Actual disciples of the apostles and their successors, believed what the CC believes today, regarding the Eucharist. Were those men, taught by the apostles, also wrong? No one prior to the reformation, believed what you believe. Were all those people over a period of 1500 years, wrong? That would mean that Jesus waited over a thousand years to finally impart truth regarding the Eucharist. Is this what you believe?

No…we know he’s speaking metaphorically when the textblets us know this…like in John 4 and 6

OK. Why then did Jesus say: and real food**my blood is real drink?

 

[joe370]

No. The thread is about misunderstood texts of Scripture. Not about the endless authority argument.

Scripture reminds us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. You and I disagree when it comes to biblical teachings, e.g. the Eucharist being a sacrifice. Which church in the world today can resolve this matter for us in the same way the CC did when certain people within the 4th century CC chose to reject the Trinitarian dogma?

Clement had 1 epistle to the Corinthians, that is (as per scholars) validly attributed to him. His other writings are doubted in terms of authenticity. Check it out…In his epistle to the Corinthians, he never mentions the Eucharist, so we really don’t know what he believed.

Clement was a contemporary of Ignatius Antioch, who was taught directly by the apostle John. He believed what the Catholic Church teaches and believes today, regarding the Eucharist? Why don’t you quote Ignatius or any of the other ECFs who believe what the CC believes today?

Ignatius of Antioch said: “Charity is no concern to them, nor are widows and orphans or the oppressed . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised . . .”

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His** blood**, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible.

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery…

Also, Ignatius belonged to the Catholic Church to which I belong, meaning that the apostle John belonged to the Catholic Church to which I now belong. Shouldn’t we aspire to belong to the church to which the apostles belonged?

Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. **Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. **

You mentioned J. N. D. Kelly in another post, regarding Peter. Kelly writes the following regarding the Eucharist: it should be understood at the outset that the Eucharist was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

“Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

Were all of these catholic ECFs wrong?

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html

 

[joe370]

Why should I trust one sentence in a catechism rather than the detailed exegesis of Augustine, Tertullian and Clement?

So you trust Augustine, but not the CCC? OK. He believed the following; do you:

The canon of Scripture includes the Septuagint OT canon (deuterocanonicals, Apocrypha)

Authoritative Tradition

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper)

The Mass is a sacrifice

Necessity of the Lord’s Supper for salvation

Purgatory and praying for the departed

The communion of saints and saintly intercession

Authority of the Catholic Church

Apostolic Succession

The sacrament of penance

 

[joe370]

Jesus often did not explain to his hearers what his words meant. That doesnt prove much.

Parables? Agreed. He did to the apostles though.

“And when He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked of Him the parable. And He said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables."

Surely Jesus would have corrected the grumblers just as he did in the following passage in Matthew 16:

Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[MartinJordan]

If the rock , in large measure, is St. Peter’s confession of faith, then why change Simon’s name to Rock? No one has ever answered that question, when asked…

If someone asked us why God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, an answer could be readily provided: God’s plan was to make Abram the father of a multitude; therefore God gave Abram a new name:

“No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.”

Jesus giving Simon the name Rock, just because God revealed the true nature of Jesus to Simon, makes no sense to me. A Name change, given by God, signifies a new role for the person receiving the new name - right?

Regarding Abram, the name change signified the fact that Abraham was to be the father of many nations. Regarding Simon, the name change signified what?

Hi Joe. I like to put it in another way: If the name Peter (of course a Greek translation of Cephas/Kephas) was not significant. Why would Paul when he talks about confronting Peter mention his name as Cephas twice. I mean Paul was deeply irritated and upset Yet keeps Peter’s name intact.

MJ

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe. I like to put it in another way: If the name Peter (of course a Greek translation of Cephas/Kephas) was not significant. Why would Paul when he talks about confronting Peter mention his name as Cephas twice. I mean Paul was deeply irritated and upset Yet keeps Peter’s name intact.

MJ

Good point.

 

[adrift]

Next, we see a name change from Simon to Rock.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Logically, it was because of Simon’s confession or profession that Jesus renamed him Rock and told him that His church would be built on Rock. Verse 16 is isolated from verse 18. Jesus’ church being built on Rock is based on the fact that Simon confessed the following: You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God - yes, no maybe?

But it doesn’t end there Jesus follows it up with

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Thus giving Peter authority in the Church that will be built upon him.

 

[ufamtobie]

Okay, Pork. I have taken cover in my concrete bunker. Are you ready?

Here it comes.

Jon,

The Catholic Church does not misunderstand (Matthew 16: 18)

Peters confession of Faith is part of it, there is more. Matthew 16:18 refers to Peter and a Church a Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it… Jon, you are forgetting about the Church, could it be this is the reason why you are not part of this Church that was built on Rock?

Jon, it is you who misunderstands Matthew 16:18 Because, if you would understand the whole of it, the way the Catholic Church teaches it by the Holy Spirit, there would only be one avenue for you to take, and that is, to enter fully in to the Catholic Faith.

Jon, Yes, it is time that you get out of your concrete bunker and become Catholic.

Ufam Tobie

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

The Catholic Church does not misunderstand (Matthew 16: 18)

Peters confession of Faith is part of it, there is more. Matthew 16:18 refers to Peter and a Church a Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it… Jon, you are forgetting about the Church, could it be this is the reason why you are not part of this Church that was built on Rock?

Jon, it is you who misunderstands Matthew 16:18 Because, if you would understand the whole of it, the way the Catholic Church teaches it by the Holy Spirit, there would only be one avenue for you to take, and that is, to enter fully in to the Catholic Faith.

Jon, Yes, it is time that you get out of your concrete bunker and become Catholic.

Ufam Tobie

Before you respond, please read my other posts in the thread.

Jon

 

[ufamtobie]

Before you respond, please read my other posts in the thread.

Jon

Jon,

I only responded to your quote that was in front of me at the time. did not know I had to read your other posts to answer this one.

Ufam Tobie

 

[adf417]

Jon,

I only responded to your quote that was in front of me at the time. did not know I had to read your other posts to answer this one.

Ufam Tobie

Brother Jon has been around a while. It would behoove all to read his writings.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I only responded to your quote that was in front of me at the time. did not know I had to read your other posts to answer this one.

Ufam Tobie

Ufam,
I was only aluding to the fact that in other posts I did expand on the thought, as a result of the conversation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Brother Jon has been around a while. It would behoove all to read his writings.

You are very kind. Thanks.

Jon