What are the Most Misunderstood Bible Verse(s)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Porknpie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnnyjones said:
Of course this will become a circular argument. It’s rare that someone on this forum does a 360 and converts to another viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Yes it will if it hasn’t already. And I’d imagine you’re right about people rarely doing a 360 to another viewpoint.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
My pastor would lay out an exegesis of the entire section and examine word usage, context, syntext, language, etc., as well as about 1800 years of commentary on John 6 that’s available.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that when 2 Christians disagree on a verse we should go to your pastor to have him provide exegesis on that verse?

Or is he proposing that we just go to any pastor to ask for his exegesis?
 
PRmerger said:
So you are saying that when 2 Christians disagree on a verse we should go to your pastor to have him provide exegesis on that verse?

Or is he proposing that we just go to any pastor to ask for his exegesis?
Click to expand...
Why would I go to another pastor for his exegesis?
 
PRmerger said:
This is very Catholic. 👍

And this, too, is very Catholic 👍

Interestingly, I believe that the text tells us…
Click to expand...
And this is very honest and may I say human of you, PR! I might have needed QMs around “know”. But not if you believe! 👍
 
40.png
adrift:
adrift, the anachronism is when you take the way a word or concept is used today and apply it to when someone else used the word several hundred years ago. For example, taking the way modern Roman Catholics use and understand “primacy,” see Cyprian use the word primacy 1700 years ago and think he means the exact same thing as today.
 
PRmerger said:
Actually, it’s the entire Catechism that is the sure norm for the faith.
Click to expand...
Why should I trust one sentence in a catechism rather than the detailed exegesis of Augustine, Tertullian and Clement?
 
CMatt25 said:
Yes it will if it hasn’t already. And I’d imagine you’re right about people rarely doing a 360 to another viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well that would be impossible to do a 360 and come to another viewpoint.

360 would make you come back to the same point, right? 😃

I think the original commenter meant to come to another viewpoint by doing a 180.
 
PRmerger said:
Yeah, well that would be impossible to do a 360 and come to another viewpoint.

360 would make you come back to the same point, right? 😃

I think the original commenter meant to come to another viewpoint by doing a 180.
Click to expand...
Good catch PR!
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Why should I trust one sentence in a catechism rather than the detailed exegesis of Augustine, Tertullian and Clement?
Click to expand...
Because, Gaelic, you already trust this Church that provided the one sentence to give you the contents of the NT.

Incidentally, I find it very, very hard to believe that you are unfamiliar with the Church’s teaching on John 6.

Are you really proposing here that you believe that the Church has only spoken authoritatively on John 6 in this one sentence. Yes? or No?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
adrift, the anachronism is when you take the way a word or concept is used today and apply it to when someone else used the word several hundred years ago. For example, taking the way modern Roman Catholics use and understand “primacy,” see Cyprian use the word primacy 1700 years ago and think he means the exact same thing as today.
Click to expand...
I didn’t ask for a definition. I know what it means and I couldn’t apply it to your statement.
Speaking of John 6
I understand why someone could look at it that way, but only do to anachronism.
Click to expand...
I am asking you what anachronism you are speaking about in that chapter. What anachronism is it do to?
 
PRmerger said:
Because, Gaelic, you already trust this Church that provided the one sentence to give you the contents of the NT.

Incidentally, I find it very, very hard to believe that you are unfamiliar with the Church’s teaching on John 6.

Are you really proposing here that you believe that the Church has only spoken authoritatively on John 6 in this one sentence. Yes? or No?
Click to expand...
Where else has it? Wasn’t Clement part of the Church? Why did he go against the teaching of the church on John 6?
 
adrift said:
I didn’t ask for a definition. I know what it means and I couldn’t apply it to your statement.
Speaking of John 6

I am asking you what anachronism you are speaking about in that chapter. What anachronism is it do to?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe I was referencing John 6 when I said that. I believe that was when I was discussing a quote from Cyprian on his usage of the primacy of Peter.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Why should I trust one sentence in a catechism rather than the detailed exegesis of Augustine, Tertullian and Clement?
Click to expand...
Is this not a quote from Tertullian:

“There is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit;** the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” **(The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
 
PRmerger said:
Is this not a quote from Tertullian:

“There is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit;** the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” **(The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Click to expand...
PR, I’m not talking about the real presence. When I make statements like, "I am not saying that Catholics are wrong about the real presence because John 6 is not about the eucharist, " i wish you would incorporate them into the conversation. There are people who are just as dogmatic as you about the real presence who do not misinterpret John 6 to be about thd Supper.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Where else has it?
Click to expand...
sigh

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1336.htm

old.usccb.org/romanmissal/girm-texts.shtml

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/
Wasn’t Clement part of the Church? Why did he go against the teaching of the church on John 6?
Click to expand...
Yes, he was a bishop in our Church.

He absolutely did NOT go against the teaching of the Church on John 6.
 
PRmerger said:
My favorite 3 words on this thread so far! :yeah_me:
Click to expand...
Ha! When you asked Gaelic who should the 2 of you go to when you disagree, I was actually waiting for you to hit Gaelic with your 2 infamous words. Hint: Each begin with the sound of the letter “f”. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top