Why Do We Take The Bible Literally ?

[benedictus2]

25When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

First of all they wonder the obvious. How did you get her this quickly? (before us maybe?) Then (here is the key point) Jesus basically tells them that the people are here looking for Jesus because of what they can get out of it. Primarily food. He tells them that filling their bellies is a waste of time but to look for spiritual fulfillment by the one God sent (next important point)
then here is the key phrase of the discourse:

Quote:
**28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” **
**29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” **

They ask: how do we get God’s approval? What must we do what works? Jesus says simply to believe in the one God sent. Everything is based off of this pivotal statment.

Quote:
30So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”

So since its obvious that Jesus is claiming to be the one sent they wonder how can he prove it (is Jesus going to say he’s greater than Moses?). They remind him that Moses gave them manna.

On verse 27. Jesus said do not work for food that spoils, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.

You failed to comment on this verse. Jesus was saying He will give them food that endures to eternal life.

And this is when the question of work came in because he said you should work for food which gives eternal life.

So when they asked him how, He says believe in the one He has sent.

Contrary to your reasoning though, this statement is actually a preparation for the “hard teaching” that is to follow. Because the Jews did not believe in Him, when he started saying eat my flesh, drink my blood, they left.

His apostles however, even though they did not understand him either remained because they believed in Him. Peter’s response was “Whom shall we go to, you have the words of eternal life”.

This discourse was done around passover time, around a year before He would institute the Eucharist, so that by the next passover, at the last supper, when He said "This is my body. … This is the cup of my blood’ the penny would drop for the disciples.

 

[benedictus2]

So the crux of the issue. He hasn’t changed topics to Eucharist but seems to still be on about believing in him and that he is real food which sustains to everlasting life because he is God. Using the manna as an the key focal point of the argument. You ate manna then died. I’m real food and can give you eternal life based on (what works can we do… believe on the one God sent.).

I agree. He hasn’t changed the topic to the Eucharist because it was always about the Eucharist.

Sandusky, in another thread reasoned, that eating and drinking means coming and believing. That verse 35 define verses 36-59. But this is quite wrong becuase if anything, the later verses define verse 35. Those who come to Him will not hunger precisely becuase He will give them His flesh to eat. And those who believe in him will most certainly not thirst because He will give them His blood to drink.

Notice that He starts off saying He is the bread of life. When the Jews don’t get it. He starts making it extra clear by using “flesh” and "blood’. He even goes on to say my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. Instead of toning down His language, he reiterates what he is saying usings strong language so as to make sure that everyone is clear as to exactly what he means.

And the Jews did get it. They knew he was not talking symbolically that is why they left.

Another argument was that eating and drinking is a Hebraism for coming and believing, that is Jesus was speaking figuratively.

But the figurative meaning of “to eat one’s flesh and drink one’s blood” is to do one an injury or calumny.

If we are to intrepret this figuratively then, you will have Jesus as saying: If you injur me and make all sort of calumny against me, you will have eternal life. How absurd is that.

 

[NonCatholic]

John 10:6-11
6 This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them. 7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have {it} abundantly. 11 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

Notice Jesus say He is the door and the shepherd. Why don’t you believe this is literal…He emphasizes in verse 7 by saying “Truly truly” - can’t get any clearer than that can it? I Am the door, Jesus is the door?

This is clearly an analogy just as eat my flesh and drink my blood, but since you want to believe what you are told by men you cannot understand it, …there is too much invested and if it is an analogy, then what would that do to the faith? It would nearly destroy it because then there is no more sacrifice for sins, no altar, no bringing Christ down (as if that were possible) and there would be a total unraveling. This is the danger on building doctrine around a single verse as opposed to looking at the whole of Scripture.

 

[benedictus2]

John 10:6-11
6 This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them. 7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have {it} abundantly. 11 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

Notice Jesus say He is the door and the shepherd. Why don’t you believe this is literal…He emphasizes in verse 7 by saying “Truly truly” - can’t get any clearer than that can it? I Am the door, Jesus is the door?

This is clearly an analogy just as eat my flesh and drink my blood, but since you want to believe what you are told by men you cannot understand it, …there is too much invested and if it is an analogy, then what would that do to the faith? It would nearly destroy it because then there is no more sacrifice for sins, no altar, no bringing Christ down (as if that were possible) and there would be a total unraveling. This is the danger on building doctrine around a single verse as opposed to looking at the whole of Scripture.

First the figure of speech referred to in verse 6 refers to verses 1-5. When he started using door, gate, etc. every one understood he was talking metaphorically. At this point he was trying to explain what verse 1-5 meant and everyone was cool with that.

As I said in my previous post: the figurative meaning of “to eat one’s flesh and drink one’s blood” is to injur or utter calumny aginst someone. So if He was talking figuratively here, what he would be saying is “If you injur me or utter calumnies against me, you will have eternal life”. Does that sound sane to you?

 

[Steadfast]

Why do non-Catholics take almost the whole Bible literally, but when it comes to John chapter 6, they insist it is figurative, when it does not say that it is?

Who are these “non-catholics” you speak of? You mean Eastern Orthodox Christians? Copts? All Protestants or just some of them?

 

[benedictus2]

This is clearly an analogy just as eat my flesh and drink my blood, but since you want to believe what you are told by men you cannot understand it, …there is too much invested and if it is an analogy, then what would that do to the faith? It would nearly destroy it because then there is no more sacrifice for sins, no altar, no bringing Christ down (as if that were possible) and there would be a total unraveling. This is the danger on building doctrine around a single verse as opposed to looking at the whole of Scripture.

As a matter of fact there is a lot of Scripture supporting our understanding of this passage.** And no, it is not built around a single verse, it was based on an entire discourse. Probably one of the longest Jesus has done on any subject**.

You are trying to pass on to us your own sin of chopping up the Bible and coming up with doctrines based on a singel verse sometimes even half a verse. A good example is your doctrine of Faith Alone and the Bible Alone, neither of which are found in the Bible.

 

[MariaG]

John 10:6-11
6 This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them. 7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have {it} abundantly. 11 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

Notice Jesus say He is the door and the shepherd. Why don’t you believe this is literal…He emphasizes in verse 7 by saying “Truly truly” - can’t get any clearer than that can it? I Am the door, Jesus is the door?

This is clearly an analogy just as eat my flesh and drink my blood, but since you want to believe what you are told by men you cannot understand it, …there is too much invested and if it is an analogy, then what would that do to the faith? It would nearly destroy it because then there is no more sacrifice for sins, no altar, no bringing Christ down (as if that were possible) and there would be a total unraveling. This is the danger on building doctrine around a single verse as opposed to looking at the whole of Scripture.

Unfortunately your contention doesn’t hold water on several levels. But for me, the most important is that no Man convicted me on this issue at all.

It was in an Evangelical Church that the Holy Spirit convicted me as to the Real Presence of Christ.

 

[Callin]

Contrary to your reasoning though, this statement is actually a preparation for the “hard teaching” that is to follow. Because the Jews did not believe in Him, when he started saying eat my flesh, drink my blood, they left.

I think it’s important to point out that this isn’t just another case of already-skeptical Jews hearing Jesus say something and then walking away in disgust.

In John 6:66, it says many of Jesus’ disciples left him. Those who already followed him, who were already listening to his teachings. They “returned to their former way of life.” If Jesus was symbolically suggesting that they should continue to follow him, this probably would not have happened. In John 5:23-24, he already said to follow him, but nobody is mentioned leaving then.

 

[NonCatholic]

As a matter of fact there is a lot of Scripture supporting our understanding of this passage.** And no, it is not built around a single verse, it was based on an entire discourse. Probably one of the longest Jesus has done on any subject**.

You are trying to pass on to us your own sin of chopping up the Bible and coming up with doctrines based on a singel verse sometimes even half a verse. A good example is your doctrine of Faith Alone and the Bible Alone, neither of which are found in the Bible.

It is explicit & implicit throughout the Bible, but certainly we cannot find Roman Catholic, even in an implicit fashion. Let’s face it; one of the problems Jesus had with the Jewish leaders is not that some tradition was wrong, but they created traditions that put many burdens on the people and were to the point where they violated the very Word of God and lead people astray to be damned. I dare say we see this a lot today.

 

[NonCatholic]

As a matter of fact there is a lot of Scripture supporting our understanding of this passage.** And no, it is not built around a single verse, it was based on an entire discourse. Probably one of the longest Jesus has done on any subject**.

You are trying to pass on to us your own sin of chopping up the Bible and coming up with doctrines based on a singel verse sometimes even half a verse. A good example is your doctrine of Faith Alone and the Bible Alone, neither of which are found in the Bible.

As I said before and now say again, if you can’t hold onto this verse in a cannibalistic sense, then the “faith” falls apart. The same is true with Matthew 16:18, if put into the proper context, the whole thing falls apart again. Who cares if Jesus said “I will build my church” ? Therefore, it must be interpreted as you say; no other possibility exists.

 

[benedictus2]

It is explicit & implicit throughout the Bible, but certainly we cannot find Roman Catholic, even in an implicit fashion. Let’s face it; one of the problems Jesus had with the Jewish leaders is not that some tradition was wrong, but they created traditions that put many burdens on the people and were to the point where they violated the very Word of God and lead people astray to be damned. I dare say we see this a lot today.

The Catholic Church is in the Bible. Or don’t you have Matthew 16 in your Bible.

On the other hand, nowhere does it say in the Bible that the formula for salvation is “Confess Jesus as your Lord and Saviour”. That is definitely a tradition of man.

Sola Fide IS A TRADITION OF MAN.
Sola Scriptura is a TRADITION OF MAN.
Once Saved Always Saved IS A TRADTION OF MAN.

And yes, many have been led astray ever since the reformation by people who violated the Word of God. It is very common among protestants to support their beliefs by using words and phrases in the Bible out of context. And yes, EVEN CHANGING THE WORD OF GOD TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM.

 

[benedictus2]

As I said before and now say again, if you can’t hold onto this verse in a cannibalistic sense, then the “faith” falls apart. The same is true with Matthew 16:18, if put into the proper context, the whole thing falls apart again. Who cares if Jesus said “I will build my church” ? Therefore, it must be interpreted as you say; no other possibility exists.

This reply only shows your ignorance. Didn’t you know that the early Christians were accused precisely of that, cannibalism. However, who accused them of cannibalism? The non-believers.

And Matthew 16:18 is as clear as day.

Can you not see how ridiculous you are sounding by the minute?

You say "Who cares if Jesus said: I will build my church? " So you don’t care what Jesus said?

Well, now it is clear, you are not only NonCatholic. You are Non Christian. Since you do not care what Jesus said well forget about reading the Bible because that is ALL ABOUT JESUS.

Now I say this to you. Who cares what you say, when you do not care what Christ says?

So now we see your true colours.
I have always maintained that if you and some other Protestants could edit the Bible, you would. You would take out those passages that does not suit your own point view. You would rather mutilate that Bible for your own prideful agenda rather than allow the Word of God to speak to you.

 

[NonCatholic]

This reply only shows your ignorance. Didn’t you know that the early Christians were accused precisely of that, cannibalism. However, who accused them of cannibalism? The non-believers. Who walked away when they thought is was canibalism at the time the words were spoken? Who understood and stuck around?

And Matthew 16:18 is as clear as day. Really? You say you have sight.

Can you not see how ridiculous you are sounding by the minute? **Comment; no comment.
**
Well, now it is clear, you are not only NonCatholic. You are Non Christian. Since you do not care what Jesus said well forget about reading the Bible because that is ALL ABOUT JESUS. **Now you are your own god?
**

So now we see your true colours. I like blue and green

I have always maintained that if you and some other Protestants could edit the Bible, you would. You would take out those passages that does not suit your own point view. You would rather mutilate that Bible for your own prideful agenda rather than allow the Word of God to speak to you.

For example, using the word “cousin”, where in fact it is brother?

Matthew 16:18
It does refer to Peter, when He says, “You are Peter and upon this rock,” He (Jesus) changes tense for obvious reasons that are demanded by the use of the Greek language and the modifying terms. He is talking about Peter and what He is saying is, “Peter, I’m going to build My church on you in this sense, the fact that you are articulating the truth. I’m not going to build it on your office, I’m not going to build it on your rank, I’m not going to build it on your worthiness, I’m not going to build it on your talent. No, I’m going to build the church on you because you are affirming the foundational truth of the church, namely that I am the Christ the Son of the living God.”

Peter can’t be the head of the church, he can’t be the foundation of the church since Christ is both in the truest and purest sense. Lenski said, “No Peter could hold up this structure.”

To the previous person, who showed the catechism concerning the Catholic church’s position on whether the “separated” are a mission field. If the church believes they are in error and they do and the errors are damnable, which they are in the church’s view, then how loving is it to let them die in their sin because they don’t see them as a mission field?

 

[NonCatholic]

The Catholic Church is in the Bible. Or don’t you have Matthew 16 in your Bible.

On the other hand, nowhere does it say in the Bible that the formula for salvation is “Confess Jesus as your Lord and Saviour”. That is definitely a tradition of man.

Sola Fide IS A TRADITION OF MAN.
Sola Scriptura is a TRADITION OF MAN.
Once Saved Always Saved IS A TRADTION OF MAN.

And yes, many have been led astray ever since the reformation by people who violated the Word of God. It is very common among protestants to support their beliefs by using words and phrases in the Bible out of context. And yes, EVEN CHANGING THE WORD OF GOD TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM.

I didn’t overlook this in case you were wondering. I don’t know much about the Sola’s. I do feel that no one can lose their salvation because grace would no longer be grace; if you lost it, then you have to be able to earn it back in which again grace would not be grace.

 

[ufamtobie]

I didn’t overlook this in case you were wondering. I don’t know much about the Sola’s. I do feel that no one can lose their salvation because grace would no longer be grace; if you lost it, then you have to be able to earn it back in which again grace would not be grace.

Noncatholic, Wow so you feel that because of Grace No One Can Loose their Salvation?

Noncatholic, Did not the Devil loose his Grace?

It was because of Grace that the Devil was in Heaven in the First Place.

Noncatholic, with your way of “FEEL” since satan had Grace, he Should still be in heaven? Wrong!

Can’t you see that puting it this way that your way of “Feel,”
you make no sense.

One can loose his or her Grace and be condemned to hell just like satan has.

Noncatholic, satan and you have the same reasoning or feel, for satan perhaps like you thought that because of Grace he had would never been condemned to hell. WRONG!

catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."
catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

Ufamtobie

 

[SIA]

Why do non-Catholics take almost the whole Bible literally, but when it comes to John chapter 6, they insist it is figurative, when it does not say that it is?

I don’t rightly know. This is a very good question. I take the Bible just as the Holy Spirit discerns it to me.

 

[benedictus2]

I didn’t overlook this in case you were wondering. I don’t know much about the Sola’s. I do feel that no one can lose their salvation because grace would no longer be grace; if you lost it, then you have to be able to earn it back in which again grace would not be grace.

If no one can lose their salvation, then you are saying that man can sin with impunity.

When a man sins he dies spiritually. So how can a man who is dead spiritually be saved?

Salvation by grace means that our salvation is free. We do not work to earn grace. However we can do works (sin) that will earn us our damnation. That is why we have free will. Notice, in the garden of Eden, life was free. Death was brought about by willfull disobedience to God.

So when you disobey God, you lose grace. Turning towards God means life. Turning away from God means death.

 

[benedictus2]

Who walked away when they thought is was canibalism at the time the words were spoken? Who understood and stuck around?

The disciples did not understand either. They knew Jesus was speaking literally. But they stuck around anyway because they believed in Him. It is only when you truly believe in Jesus that you can accept that He was not speaking metaphorically here.

benedictus2:

*And Matthew *

16:18* is as clear as day.*Really? You say you have sight.

The one who does not see is the one who has no sight. In this case it is you because you are the one who fails to see it for what it is. If you will take off the blinders you will see this as well. But “I/Me/Myself’ is so ingrained in you that it is very hard for the Truth to pierce your mind.

benedictus2:

*Well, now it is clear, you are not only NonCatholic. *

You are Non Christian*. Since you do not care what Jesus said well forget about reading the Bible because that is ALL ABOUT JESUS. ** Now you are your own god?*

You really have a predeliction for non-sequiturs. How does this reponse follow from the post you are replying to?

For example, using the word “cousin”, where in fact it is brother?

We never substituted the word “cousin” for “brother”. Pointing out that the word “brother” has a broader context in Hebrew and Aramaic is not substituting. Catholic Bibles use the word brother.

Matthew 16:18
It does refer to Peter, when He says, “You are Peter and upon this rock,” He (Jesus) changes tense for obvious reasons that are demanded by the use of the Greek language and the modifying terms. He is talking about Peter and what He is saying is, **“Peter, I’m going to build My church on YOU in this sense, the fact that you are articulating the truth. I’m not going to build it on your office, I’m not going to build it on your rank, I’m not going to build it on your worthiness, I’m not going to build it on your talent. No, I’m going to build the church on YOU because you are affirming the foundational truth of the church, namely that I am the Christ the Son of the living God.” **

Well finally you are making sense! There is hope after all! Yes, yes, yes. Jesus built His Church upon Peter. And this same Church is alive and well today. She is the Catholic Church.
And yes you are right, Jesus did not build on Peter’s office. There was no office to speak of when He started the Church. The office was created when chose His disciples. The office of the Pope was created when He built His Church on Peter.

And the fact that the Father revealed the truth to Peter means that the Father had a hand in choosing Peter. The Father could have given that revelation to any other disciple but He gave that revelation to Peter which then prompts Jesus to choose Him.

Peter can’t be the head of the church, he can’t be the foundation of the church since Christ is both in the truest and purest sense. Lenski said, “No Peter could hold up this structure.”

True, Jesus is the Head of the Church. But Peter is the visible head of the Church. He gives Peter the power to bind and lose on earth as in heaven. He is the Vicar to whom Christ entrusted his us, his sheep. And you are right, it is not Peter who holds up the structure. It is Christ. Christ is the one who builds this Church.

Funny, you’ve just affirmed our position and you don’t even see that you have. Maaannn, take off those blinders.

To the previous person, who showed the catechism concerning the Catholic church’s position on whether the “separated” are a mission field. If the church believes they are in error and they do and the errors are damnable, which they are in the church’s view, then how loving is it to let them die in their sin because they don’t see them as a mission field?

But the Church is not letting you die in this sin. The Church is showing you the light but you refuse to listen to Her. It is you who are choosing to die in this sin.

We have been trying to make you see the light for sometime now and still you refuse to believe. If you die in un-belief, it is no longer our fault. We have done our part.

 

[NonCatholic]

Noncatholic, Wow so you feel that because of Grace No One Can Loose their Salvation?

Noncatholic, Did not the Devil loose his Grace?

It was because of Grace that the Devil was in Heaven in the First Place.

Noncatholic, with your way of “FEEL” since satan had Grace, he Should still be in heaven? Wrong!

Can’t you see that puting it this way that your way of “Feel,”
you make no sense.

One can loose his or her Grace and be condemned to hell just like satan has.

Noncatholic, satan and you have the same reasoning or feel, for satan perhaps like you thought that because of Grace he had would never been condemned to hell. WRONG!

catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."
catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

Ufamtobie

You cannot compare the Angels with the redemption of man, so you start with a fallacy. Angels cannot be redeemed as man can be…right?

Your knowledge of Scripture is poor at best, for example on “working out your own salvation”…is Paul talking to believers or unbelievers? It refers to the sanctification process, not justification, but you must put things into context.

How do you “feel” about the RCC? How do you feel about it’s traditions? How to you feel about the validity of Scritpure?

 

[NonCatholic]

If no one can lose their salvation, then you are saying that man can sin with impunity.

When a man sins he dies spiritually. So how can a man who is dead spiritually be saved?

Salvation by grace means that our salvation is free. We do not work to earn grace. However we can do works (sin) that will earn us our damnation. That is why we have free will. Notice, in the garden of Eden, life was free. Death was brought about by willfull disobedience to God.

So when you disobey God, you lose grace. Turning towards God means life. Turning away from God means death.

You misunderstand the Gospel. One is saved through faith in Christ. One goes to hell for unbelief. The penalty for sin is death, which was imputed to us by one man (Adam), but where you go depends on what you do with the revelation God has given each individual…what you do with that truth will determine your destiny.