Who can deny that the evils in this world help to separate us from God?

[Bookcat]

I take John 12:25 literally. If John intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so. If we cannot take this passage at face value, then we should not take anything else that John wrote at its face value.

So then you would say the same for Luke 14:26?

So you would then say - “I take -]John 12:25/-] Luke 14:26 literally.If -]John /-] LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so. If we cannot take this passage at face value, then we should not take anything else that -]John/-] LUKE wrote at its face value.”

Luke 14: 26 is:

"If any one comes to me and does not hate** his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."**

ewtn.com/v/bible/search_bible.asp

So you hate your Mom and Dad then right?

If not - why?

“If LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so.”

And so I should hate not only my “life” but also my Father and my Mother and my Children?

And ignore my Marriage vows and the 4th Commandment to Honor my Father and Mother and the love I am to have for my kids?

and go contrary to the command of Jesus to LOVE?

No that would* not* be correct.

Such would be contrary to what Jesus and the Gospel writer intended (no matter the “face value” to an English speaker).

I am instead to read such as the* Church* reads it - understand it as Jesus and Luke intended it…which is well explained up above in the quote from* Pope Benedict XVI* (who was given his authority by the He who said it) - ( it is a “strong and paradoxical Semitic expression”)…

 

[Robert_Sock]

What causes me to deeply despise this world is the fact that our free will has become limited in that no matter how much we want or try, we cannot become fully united with our Creator until we exit this world. I deeply desire to be reunited with God right now!

 

[Bookcat]

I take John 12:25 literally. If John intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so. If we cannot take this passage at face value, then we should not take anything else that John wrote at its face value.

So then you would say the same for Luke 14:26?

So you would then say - “I take -]John 12:25/-] Luke 14:26 literally.If -]John /-] LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so. If we cannot take this passage at face value, then we should not take anything else that -]John/-] LUKE wrote at its face value.”

Luke 14: 26 is:

"If any one comes to me and does not hate** his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."**

ewtn.com/v/bible/search_bible.asp

**So you hate your Mom and Dad then right? **

If not - why?

“If LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so.”

And so I should hate not only my “life” but also my Father and my Mother and my Children?

And ignore my Marriage vows and the 4th Commandment to Honor my Father and Mother and the love I am to have for my kids?

and go contrary to the command of Jesus to LOVE?

No that would* not* be correct.

Such would be contrary to what Jesus and the Gospel writer intended (no matter the “face value” to an English speaker).

I am instead to read such as the* Church* reads it - understand it as Jesus and Luke intended it…which is well explained up above in the quote from* Pope Benedict XVI* (who was given his authority by the He who said it) - ( it is a “strong and paradoxical Semitic expression”)…

 

[Robert_Sock]

What?

The Pope is TEACHING the Church - not writing a research paper.

That is the office of the Pope.

It is not “reinterpreting” it - it is rather known that Jesus and John etc are using that semitic way of speaking here (semitic expression).

One can simply go to any good Catholic Scripture commentary and find this explained as the kind of language it is…

How can he just ignore all the evidence to the contrary? Other sources have often been cited in the Churches teaching, such as in the CCC.

 

[sudy]

We are a new creation, the old self is gone.

1 Peter 1:8 Without having seen him you love him; though you do not now see him you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy.

 

[Bookcat]

How can he just ignore all the evidence to the contrary? .

Ignore? Wrong question.

He rather was quite aware of the meaning of the text and the teachings of Scripture and the Church.

No he rather KNOWS what the text means…he was one of the most scholarly of Popes…

He is TEACHING.

Not writing a written book.

 

[Bookcat]

I take John 12:25 literally. If John intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so. If we cannot take this passage at face value, then we should not take anything else that John wrote at its face value.

So then you would say the same for Luke 14:26?

So you would then say - “I take -]John 12:25/-] Luke 14:26 literally.If -]John /-] LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so. If we cannot take this passage at face value, then we should not take anything else that -]John/-] LUKE wrote at its face value.”

Luke 14: 26 is:

"If any one comes to me and does not hate** his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."**

ewtn.com/v/bible/search_bible.asp

**So you hate your Mom and Dad then right? **

(hate in the face value sort of way)

If not - why?

“If LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so.”

And so I should hate not only my “life” but also my Father and my Mother and my Children?

And ignore my Marriage vows and the 4th Commandment to Honor my Father and Mother and the love I am to have for my kids?

and go contrary to the command of Jesus to LOVE?

No that would* not* be correct.

Such would be contrary to what Jesus and the Gospel writer intended (no matter the “face value” to an English speaker).

I am instead to read such as the* Church* reads it - understand it as Jesus and Luke intended it…which is well explained up above in the quote from* Pope Benedict XVI* (who was given his authority by the He who said it) - ( it is a “strong and paradoxical Semitic expression”)…

 

[STT]

Does anybody have evidence to the contrary? Can anybody on this forum argue otherwise? To think that we are fully united to God by attending Sunday Mass would be absurd!

What are the implications?

There is a big problem here: Why we should be here if suffering is bad thing and God is love?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Let me suggest that you and your spiritual director sit down together and watch The Way of the Cross by Saint Francis of Assisi, which can be found here:

youtube.com/watch?v=oZ9om4YElns

I watch it every day, along with the Holy Rosary and reading The Imitation of Christ, and my perception of reality has changed considerably. Most of us have our perception of reality formed from what I call the grand illusion which is maintained in us beginning at a very young age and is created by the intense, dark influence of the mass media. If we are to grow as Catholics, we must alter our false sense of reality by restructuring it according to hardcore Catholicism, such as in reading or viewing the sources I just listed.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Ignore? Wrong question.

He rather was quite aware of the meaning of the text and the teachings of Scripture and the Church.

No he rather KNOWS what the text means…he was one of the most scholarly of Popes…

He is TEACHING.

Not writing a written book.

There you go again, blowing away common sense and taking a very dangerous, authoritarian approach to the interpretation of the scriptures.

 

[Wesrock]

Some relevant quotes from the CCC:

285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

God creates an ordered and good world
299 Because God creates through wisdom, his creation is ordered: "You have arranged all things by measure and number and weight."151 The universe, created in and by the eternal Word, the “image of the invisible God”, is destined for and addressed to man, himself created in the “image of God” and called to a personal relationship with God.152 Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work.153 Because creation comes forth from God’s goodness, it shares in that goodness - "and God saw that it was good. . . very good"154- for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world.155

God upholds and sustains creation
301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:

For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made; for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured, if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.160

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. the universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbours. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.170

308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."171 Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a Creator the creature vanishes."172 Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.173

 

[Wesrock]

Pope Benedict XVI was also a Biblical scholar. Not just by virtue of being Bishop and then Pope. That was one of his actual above and beyond specialties, and

 

[Robert_Sock]

Now that you are done slandering me yet again, can you explain why my wanting to be united to my Creator is such a bad attitude to have? Can you please explain why my choosing to take John 12:25 as originally stated is "twisted, dark, misguided, misinterpretations? What other passages have I done this to? I believe your critique of me is greatly exaggerated in order to belittle me, as you very often try to do on just about anything I post.

 

[Bookcat]

There you go again, blowing away common sense and taking a very dangerous, authoritarian approach to the interpretation of the scriptures.

What on earth are you talking about. Not my posts.

 

[Bookcat]

I take John 12:25 literally. If John intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so. If we cannot take this passage at face value, then we should not take anything else that John wrote at its face value.

So then you would say the same for Luke 14:26?

So you would then say - “I take -]John 12:25/-] Luke 14:26 literally.If -]John /-] LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so. If we cannot take this passage at face value, then we should not take anything else that -]John/-] LUKE wrote at its face value.”

Luke 14: 26 is:

"If any one comes to me and does not hate** his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."**

ewtn.com/v/bible/search_bible.asp

**So you hate your Mom and Dad then right? **

(hate in the face value sort of way)

You should …for …

“If LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so.”

And so I should hate not only my “life” but also my Father and my Mother and my Children?

And ignore my Marriage vows and the 4th Commandment to Honor my Father and Mother and the love I am to have for my kids?

and go contrary to the command of Jesus to LOVE?

No that would* not* be correct.

Such would be contrary to what Jesus and the Gospel writer intended (no matter the “face value” to an English speaker).

I am instead to read such as the* Church* reads it - understand it as Jesus and Luke intended it…which is well explained up above in the quote from* Pope Benedict XVI* (who was given his authority by the He who said it) - ( it is a “strong and paradoxical Semitic expression”)…

 

[Robert_Sock]

So then you would say the same for Luke 14:26?

So you would then say - “I take -]John 12:25/-] Luke 14:26 literally.If -]John /-] LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so. If we cannot take this passage at face value, then we should not take anything else that -]John/-] LUKE wrote at its face value.”

Luke 14: 26 is:

"If any one comes to me and does not hate** his own father** and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

ewtn.com/v/bible/search_bible.asp

So you hate your Mom and Dad then right?

(hate in the face value sort of way)

If not - why?

“If LUKE intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so.”

And so I should hate not only my “life” but also my Father and my Mother and my Children?

And ignore my Marriage vows and the 4th Commandment to Honor my Father and Mother and the love I am to have for my kids?

and go contrary to the command of Jesus to LOVE?

No that would* not* be correct.

Such would be contrary to what Jesus and the Gospel writer intended (no matter the “face value” to an English speaker).

I am instead to read such as the* Church* reads it - understand it as Jesus and Luke intended it…which is well explained up above in the quote from* Pope Benedict XVI* (who was given his authority by the He who said it) - ( it is a “strong and paradoxical Semitic expression”)…

If John 12:25 was in any way ambiguous, I wholeheartedly agree with you. But it’s as clear as can be and is consistent with many other sources that I listed previously.

 

[Bookcat]

If John 12:25 was in any way ambiguous, I wholeheartedly agree with you. But it’s as clear as can be and is consistent with many other sources that I listed previously.

Correct it it is not ambigous - it means what the Pope and the Scholars say it means…the is how the original audience would have understood it!!

Not in the way your suggesting in your private - 21st century reading of an English Translation.

Read again that last post.

That verse even contains the part about ones life!

So I must hate not only my life but my wife…and my mother and father and children…

(in that face value way…)

“If Luke intended it to have a different meaning, he would certainly have said so.”

 

[LilyM]

Really? Are we to believe that Jesus made 120 GALLONS of wine at Cana - good quality stuff too - for a bunch of wedding guests who had already drunk the place dry and clearly didn’t need more - because they were supposed to sit around and be miserable and lament the evils of the world and hate themselves and each other and everything around them?

Jesus says He came so that our joy may be complete. He does not promise only deferred joy in the afterlife.

It is a good thing, a duty and most Christlike to take appropriate joy in the goods (and there are many) of this world as well as looking forward to the next. God surely does.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Really? Are we to believe that Jesus made 120 GALLONS of wine at Cana - good quality stuff too - for a bunch of wedding guests who had already drunk the place dry and clearly didn’t need more - because they were supposed to sit around and be miserable and lament the evils of the world and hate themselves and each other and everything around them?

Jesus says He came so that our joy may be complete. He does not promise only deferred joy in the afterlife.

It is a good thing, a duty and most Christlike to take appropriate joy in the goods (and there are many) of this world as well as looking forward to the next. God surely does.

Did you bother to read everything I wrote?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14627716&postcount=38

 

[Robert_Sock]

Really? Are we to believe that Jesus made 120 GALLONS of wine at Cana - good quality stuff too - for a bunch of wedding guests who had already drunk the place dry and clearly didn’t need more - because they were supposed to sit around and be miserable and lament the evils of the world and hate themselves and each other and everything around them?

Jesus says He came so that our joy may be complete. He does not promise only deferred joy in the afterlife.

It is a good thing, a duty and most Christlike to take appropriate joy in the goods (and there are many) of this world as well as looking forward to the next. God surely does.

The best joys we can experience in this world are not worldly pleasures, but the many graces from God.