What are the Most Misunderstood Bible Verse(s)

[Gaelic_Bard]

After reading and reflecting on the sola scriptura thread comments and the frequent disagreement on scripture interpretation, I starting wondering what Catholics and catholics (non-Catholics) thought were the most mis-understood bible verses? While the number of responses could likely fill a book on its own, a few suggestions per post would be interesting to read…and discuss.

:coffeeread:
(Dunkin Donnuts today minus the donut)

Most misunderstood by Catholics - John 6 (various verses)

Most misunderstood by Protestants - Matthew 16:18 (Sorry Jon )

 

[Bballer32]

Most misunderstood by Catholics - John 6

I’d like to hear more about this

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I’d like to hear more about this

Okay, well…It is a metaphorical discourse that, at its heart is about believing that Christ is the Messiah from heaven. Its not a communion passage in any sense. I understand why someone could look at it that way, but only do to anachronism. Now, don’t misunderstand…I am not using that to say Catholic beliefs on the eucharist are wrong because John 6 is not a eucharistic passage.

 

[tskrobacz]

After reading and reflecting on the sola scriptura thread comments and the frequent disagreement on scripture interpretation, I starting wondering what Catholics and catholics (non-Catholics) thought were the most mis-understood bible verses? While the number of responses could likely fill a book on its own, a few suggestions per post would be interesting to read…and discuss.

:coffeeread:
(Dunkin Donnuts today minus the donut)

Matthew 22:

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

[andrewstx]

I think the problem is less with missunderstanding verses, and more with cherry picking “proof texts” and ignoring other verses.

For example the verse that says believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and confess his name and you will be saved, is used in isolation.
While the verses that say Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins are swept under the rug.

The same people and churches that focus on part one say instead that faith and conffession of Jesus is enough to forgive sin, and after you are already foregiven and saved you may be baptised as only a symbol.

 

[Bballer32]

Okay, well…It is a metaphorical discourse that, at its heart is about believing that Christ is the Messiah from heaven. Its not a communion passage in any sense. I understand why someone could look at it that way, but only do to anachronism. Now, don’t misunderstand…I am not using that to say Catholic beliefs on the eucharist are wrong because John 6 is not a eucharistic passage.

There is ties between John 6 and the passage for the Eucharist, if you didn’t already know that.

 

[JonNC]

There is ties between John 6 and the passage for the Eucharist, if you didn’t already know that.

Strong ties! My problem with the way Catholics describe the ties is by pointing to John 6 first. It is the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels and by Paul that confirms the real presence. John 6 reaffirms it, in a predictive way.

Jon

 

[MartinJordan]

Strong ties! My problem with the way Catholics describe the ties is by pointing to John 6 first. It is the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels and by Paul that confirms the real presence. John 6 reaffirms it, in a predictive way.

Jon

This Catholic understands John 6 as predictive as well. At least as far as being a step by step presentation to Jesus’ disciples who remain with him after many others walked away when the latter mumured about hard teaching. It is at the upper room that it culminates to being the Eucharist. Consecration takes place here by Jesus’ words “This IS my Body…Blood…”

MJ

 

[Bballer32]

Strong ties! My problem with the way Catholics describe the ties is by pointing to John 6 first. It is the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels and by Paul that confirms the real presence. John 6 reaffirms it, in a predictive way.

Jon

I hope i read this right haha

John 6 should be pointed to first since it did TECHNICALLY happen before the Last Supper… kind of like a foreshadow in a story.

This way by the time of the Last Supper, the disciples would know that Jesus wasn’t messing around when he said “This IS MY BODY”.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

There is ties between John 6 and the passage for the Eucharist, if you didn’t already know that.

At best, tangential, if even that. Of course, there’s been much ink spilled on it but it depends on how much you want to get into it coming/believing = eating/drinking. It seems that the communion connection is a later interpretation. Augustine and Cyprian interpreted the passage in the figurative sense as a discourse on faith receiving the heavenly manna, which gives eternal life, as opposed to the earthly manna which is temporary. It defeats Jesus’ point to again refer to something physical rather than spiritual.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

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

Here it comes.
Haha Jon.

That Peter is the rock (because of his confession of faith) is the most natural reading of the passage.

 

[johnnyjones]

After reading and reflecting on the sola scriptura thread comments and the frequent disagreement on scripture interpretation, I starting wondering what Catholics and catholics (non-Catholics) thought were the most mis-understood bible verses? While the number of responses could likely fill a book on its own, a few suggestions per post would be interesting to read…and discuss.

:coffeeread:
(Dunkin Donnuts today minus the donut)

Using “All scripture is God breathed” to support sola scriptura.

But as a poster already said the most hammered home and misused scripture is “judge not lest ye be judged”. Many just throw it out there and few read the remaining passages. It’s become a sort of cultural saying.

 

[adf417]

Haha Jon.

That Peter is the rock (because of his confession of faith) is the most natural reading of the passage.

Hi Gaelic are you using a quantitative means of discernment? What is your meaning of “most natural”?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

=Bballer32;10282999]I hope i read this right haha

John 6 should be pointed to first since it did TECHNICALLY happen before the Last Supper… kind of like a foreshadow in a story.

I can understand what you say here. I think my point was probably (and poorly, perhaps) directed at the apolegetics of it. Catholics tend to go to John 6 first when speaking of the real presence in dialogue. I think Lutherans prabably as a group tend to go to the Gospel accounts of the Lord’s Supper and St. Paul’s.

This way by the time of the Last Supper, the disciples would know that Jesus wasn’t messing around when he said “This IS MY BODY”.

Ok.

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Hi Gaelic are you using a quantitative means of discernment? What is your meaning of “most natural”?

Peace!!!

Meaning the original audience would have most likely understood Jesus to be saying “you are rock and upon this rock (I.e. you) I am building my church.”

 

[JonNC]

Meaning the original audience would have most likely understood Jesus to be saying “you are rock and upon this rock (I.e. you) I am building my church.”

I want you to notice, Gaelic, how I worded my initial wording: I said “in large measure”, in order to show that I believe that surely Christ said it to Peter, changed his name to Peter, he must have meant Peter, but the Peter of that statement of faith. Christ also tells him that he knew that because of God, and not because of men.

I think it is apolegetic gymnastics to completely remove Peter from the “you are rock” statement. I also don’t believe Christ meant exactly what the Catholic Church seems to think in terms of universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.

I also said it that way to try and soften the expected bombardment.

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I want you to notice, Gaelic, how I worded my initial wording: I said “in large measure”, in order to show that I believe that surely Christ said it to Peter, changed his name to Peter, he must have meant Peter, but the Peter of that statement of faith. Christ also tells him that he knew that because of God, and not because of men.

I think it is apolegetic gymnastics to completely remove Peter from the “you are rock” statement. I also don’t believe Christ meant exactly what the Catholic Church seems to think in terms of universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.

I also said it that way to try and soften the expected bombardment.

Jon

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.”

 

[CMatt25]

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

Here it comes.
You and I rarely if ever agree on anything. But I was going to say the same verse. Both interpretations either if whether Peter was the rock or if his profession of Christ being the Savior the Son of God was the rock, certainly each have their strong advocates.

 

[CMatt25]

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.”

I was going to ask why if Peter was the rock, you’re not Catholic. Until I read your last paragraph. So in reading the ECFs you don’t believe the ECFs believed as the Catholic Church does?

 

[mskejj]

I want you to notice, Gaelic, how I worded my initial wording: I said “in large measure”, in order to show that I believe that surely Christ said it to Peter, changed his name to Peter, he must have meant Peter, but the Peter of that statement of faith. Christ also tells him that he knew that because of God, and not because of men.

I think it is apolegetic gymnastics to completely remove Peter from the “you are rock” statement. I also don’t believe Christ meant exactly what the Catholic Church seems to think in terms of universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.

I also said it that way to try and soften the expected bombardment.

Jon

Dr. Brandt Pitre’s CD on Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Papacy helps one see how the Jews of Jesus’ time would have interpreted Jesus’ words in Matthew 16. He uses many of the ancient Jewish writings to shed light on these verses and of course, Isaiah 22. He has a quote on there from the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures on Isaiah 22 and quotes on what Jewish tradition taught about what happened “to the keys” when the first temple was destroyed. He also has references which discuss the “foundation stone” upon which the Temple was built and that the Jews believed was the center of the world.

You can go to his website and print out the talk’s notes and many of these quotes are listed if you are interested.