What are the Most Misunderstood Bible Verse(s)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Porknpie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaelic_Bard said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s impossible to talk about John 6 without talking about the Real Presence, Gaelic.

That’s like your being in a discussion with a Muslim about Jesus and the Muslim saying, “I am not saying that Christians are wrong about Jesus being divine, I just want to talk about Jesus and what the NT says about him.” Well, it’s impossible to separate Jesus’ divinity from the NT, right?
 
PRmerger said:
It’s impossible to talk about John 6 without talking about the Real Presence, Gaelic.

That’s like your being in a discussion with a Muslim about Jesus and the Muslim saying, “I am not saying that Christians are wrong about Jesus being divine, I just want to talk about Jesus and what the NT says about him.” Well, it’s impossible to separate Jesus’ divinity from the NT, right?
Click to expand...
Yes it is possible, PR, hence why church fathers did exactly that.
 
CMatt25 said:
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”. 😛
Click to expand...
Oh, I just need a little bit more for the table to be set for me to say it. 😃
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes it is possible, PR, hence why church fathers did exactly that.
Click to expand...
Ummm i’m sorry Gaelic but i’m gonna have to disagree TREMENDOUSLY on the “fact” that the Church father’s saw it as a symbol. no no no no… i happen to enjoy studying patristics and so if you so want me to, i can load up a bunch of quotes to show you otherwise…

God bless 🙂
 
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...
Can you answer this, Gaelic, please?

When 2 Christians disagree on a verse your pastor proposes that we go to him for further exegesis? Or any pastor?
 
Bballer32 said:
Ummm i’m sorry Gaelic but i’m gonna have to disagree TREMENDOUSLY on the “fact” that the Church father’s saw it as a symbol. no no no no… i happen to enjoy studying patristics and so if you so want me to, i can load up a bunch of quotes to show you otherwise…

God bless 🙂
Click to expand...
Bb, so when Clement said it was a symbol and a metaphor, whst he really meant was…its not a symbol and not a metaphor?
 
PRmerger said:
Can you answer this, Gaelic, please?

When 2 Christians disagree on a verse your pastor proposes that we go to him for further exegesis? Or any pastor?
Click to expand...
No. The thread is about misunderstood texts of Scripture. Not about the endless authority argument.
 
Bballer32 said:
THANK YOUUUUUUUU!!!:extrahappy:
Click to expand...
It’s like a Muslim saying, “Even your inspired writer, Paul, claims that Jesus was a sinner when he says, ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’ in Romans.”

It’s an excerpt taken out of context, no? Clearly, any reading of Paul, in the context of the NT, will show us that he does not believe that Jesus was a sinner.

But if you take something out of context, you can make all sorts of wild claims.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Bb, so when Clement said it was a symbol and a metaphor, whst he really meant was…its not a symbol and not a metaphor?
Click to expand...
As in St. Clement of Alexandria??

he said
“Eat my flesh,” Jesus says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he DELIVERS over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children. Instructor of Children 1:6 (A.D. 197)]
Click to expand...
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Gaelic_Bard said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it was not about Cyprian. It was about John 6. The bolded part is what I want you to explain.
 
That’s it… there is more on him but that’s considered his strong point
 
adrift said:
No it was not about Cyprian. It was about John 6. The bolded part is what I want you to explain.
Click to expand...
Okay, adrift. Yes the anachronism is reading it with the eucharist in view, because of the bekief in the real presence, rather than what the author intends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top