Why Do We Take The Bible Literally ?

[benedictus2]

It is figurative. See signature below.

Sorry but your signature is not an explanation of why it is figurative.

Or are you afraid to go on a detailed debate about this?

 

[benedictus2]

Notice how I didn’t write the verses below. God defined those verses for me. That’s what the Bible said and I believe it. Not one line there is of my own reasoning. It’s just a simple plain text reading from the full Gospel of John. I didn’t take just one verse (i.e. John 6:53) and build doctrine around it.

God did not define those verses for you. You chopped up the word of God and came up with this mismash.

It seems you are afraid of a real debate that is why you write short little equations that does not mean what you want them to mean.

Afraid of being challenged and losing your ground?

 

[sambos671]

God did not define those verses for you. You chopped up the word of God and came up with this mismash

Protestants believe the bible is self explanitory or it is writen in such a way that is understood what is meant simply by reading the text. They also believe the bits that are difficult to understand are made understandable by the HS. However, If you read the text you can come to that conclusion. I’ll repost my earlier statements on another thread:
It is clear Clement, Ignatius, and Justin Matyr hold to the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. John Chapter 6 is held by Catholics to speak to this matter of the Eucharist. However, If I exegete this scripture (without the Greek since I don’t know Greek) this is what I come accross and it doesn’t necissarily hold to the presence. This is what I mean:

3Then Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples. 4The Jewish Passover Feast was near.

[/QUOTE]

 

[sambos671]

Quote:
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

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.).

Quote:
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

back to the believing in him motif from the previous statement. He basically says if you actually see me raise to my prior position then what would you say? Then he finalizes his statement saying Only God can enable people to believe in him.

 

[benedictus2]

Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Actually John 6:55 says my flesh is food indeed. That means his flesh literally IS FOOD. And without eating this food you will not have life because food gives life.

REMEMBER, JESUS DEFINED MEAT HERE
Jhn 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Jesus said “HIS foodis to do the will of of the One who sent Him and to finish His work.” Jesus is NOT defining meat in this passage.

So you have two different FOODS here. The food in John 4 is Jesus’s food, what He needs to nourish him. His nourishment comes from doing His Father’s Will

But the food in John 6 is OUR food, which is Jesus’ flesh. What we need to be nourished.

So it goes like this. Jesus is our food, but Jesus’s food is the will of the Father.

By doing the will of the Father, Jesus is sustained to become our Food. So in effect, It really is the will of the Father that Jesus be our food. For by consuming Jesus we are nourished and strengthened TO DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER.

So your little equation is totally illogical and designed to obscure truth.

 

[ckempston]

Respectfully believers, I disagree with your interpretation. It is one that has come along and is not present in the early church. Scripture warns that there will be those that come along twisting scripture and since your interpretation is nowhere in the early church and the Catholic one is, common sense and history deny your “truth”.

And most important, the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church because of John 6.

Actually, I just read Origen’s commentary on John, and he seems to give a spiritual intepretation to all of John 6. For instance:

I am led to this observation by John’s saying, And the bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world. Again, we eat the flesh of the Lamb, with bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, when we repent of our sins and grieve with the sorrow which is according to God, a repentance which operates for our salvation, and is not to be repented of; or when, on account of our trials, we turn to the speculations which are found to be those of truth, and are nourished by them.

Origen may not be a big favorite in Catholicism, or anywhere else for that matter, but to say a spiritual intperetation of John 6 is unfounded in the early church is untrue.

 

[sambos671]

Actually John 6:55 says my flesh is food indeed. That means his flesh literally IS FOOD. And without eating this food you will not have life because food gives life.

Jesus said “HIS foodis to do the will of of the One who sent Him and to finish His work.” Jesus is NOT defining meat in this passage.

So you have two different FOODS here. The food in John 4 is Jesus’s food, what He needs to nourish him. His nourishment comes from doing His Father’s Will

But the food in John 6 is OUR food, which is Jesus’ flesh. What we need to be nourished.

So it goes like this. Jesus is our food, but Jesus’s food is the will of the Father.

By doing the will of the Father, Jesus is sustained to become our Food. So in effect, It really is the will of the Father that Jesus be our food. For by consuming Jesus we are nourished and strengthened TO DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER.

So your little equation is totally illogical and designed to obscure truth.

Not really read my two above posts. And you also left out the bit about it being a spiritual truth.

 

[MariaG]

I think the problem here is one of exclusion. I think one aspect is exactly what believer is stating that yes the work of God in these verses is belief. But that does not exclude that Jesus may have also been referring to the establishment of the future sacrament. consider the Passover Meals. Is he referring to this discourse? I doubt it. The early church obiously believed in the Eucharist. Though not defined as Transsubstantiation then.

Yes, maybe that would be more precise. Excludes another valid interpretation. It might be likened to Jewish people who deny that the Old Testament has any further meaning about Christ? But when does that denial in and of itself become so significant that untruth is then being spoken?

But I agree that the through the writings of the Fathers that clearly, the Catholic Church is not the one to change the interpretation of scripture.

 

[MariaG]

Actually, I just read Origen’s commentary on John, and he seems to give a spiritual intepretation to all of John 6. For instance:

I am led to this observation by John’s saying, And the bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world. Again, we eat the flesh of the Lamb, with bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, when we repent of our sins and grieve with the sorrow which is according to God, a repentance which operates for our salvation, and is not to be repented of; or when, on account of our trials, we turn to the speculations which are found to be those of truth, and are nourished by them.

Origen may not be a big favorite in Catholicism, or anywhere else for that matter, but to say a spiritual intperetation of John 6 is unfounded in the early church is untrue.

Respectfully, I never said the spiritual interpretation is unfounded.

However, I should have more accurately said I disagree with believers conclusion. Or as pointed out by sambosa671 disagree with believers exclusion of any further understanding of scripture. My only excuse is an extended leave from the boards and a failure to remember to be as precise as possible

God Bless,
Maria

 

[sambos671]

Yes, maybe that would be more precise. Excludes another valid interpretation. It might be likened to Jewish people who deny that the Old Testament has any further meaning about Christ? But when does that denial in and of itself become so significant that untruth is then being spoken?

But I agree that the through the writings of the Fathers that clearly, the Catholic Church is not the one to change the interpretation of scripture.

This is one thing I never understood about Catholics. They would rather have someone sin and abhor the eucharist by living as a homosexual, adulterer, a theif, a fornicator, live in superstition (ie bury st. joseph statue to sell house) etc… not change their and still recieve the host w/out real repetance. Than the would someone who turned their life around as a protestant engross themselves in scripture and do good works for the benefit of their community. When I consider this is astounds me especially when I consider these verses:

26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is false 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
worthless.

8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

And when you consider this from Jesus who is more righteous?

28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29" ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
“The first,” they answered.

 

[Callin]

I think this is one verse where it’s a good idea to look at the Greek version. In almost every passage of the Greek Bible where the word “eat” is used, the Greek word “phago” is used.

But in the passages of John where Jesus says to “eat of his body,” a different word for eat, “trogo” is used. And trogo puts emphasis on the actual chewing/gnawing, so it’s much less likely to be symbolic. In fact, trogo is only used 6 times in the Bible. Five are in John, when mentioning eating the body. And the only other time is Matthew 24:38, which is used literally. That the word trogo was used repeatedly in John for this purpose would support the Catholic view of literal eating.

These links show the definitions, and the verses as well, for the KJV and NAB Bibles:

Phago: studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5315

1. to eat
2. to eat (consume) a thing 1. to take food, eat a meal
   2. metaph. to devour, consume

Trogo: studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5176

1. to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds) 1. of animals feeding
   2. of men
2. to eat

 

[BrianH]

Just going to add this real quick and jump out. No evangelical commentaries deny that Jesus was using literal words to describe chewing. They believe he used literal words to get attention but then clarifes throughout the passage.
You can disagree with their interpretation of John 6 but focusing on the actual chewing part is ineffective. They do not believe he was talking about spiritual chewing anymore than they think he was talking about a spiritual door etc.
Just to clarify their view

 

[ckempston]

Respectfully, I never said the spiritual interpretation is unfounded.

However, I should have more accurately said I disagree with believers conclusion. Or as pointed out by sambosa671 disagree with believers exclusion of any further understanding of scripture. My only excuse is an extended leave from the boards and a failure to remember to be as precise as possible

God Bless,
Maria

That precision will get ya every time. Gotcha.

 

[ckempston]

I think this is one verse where it’s a good idea to look at the Greek version. In almost every passage of the Greek Bible where the word “eat” is used, the Greek word “phago” is used.

But in the passages of John where Jesus says to “eat of his body,” a different word for eat, “trogo” is used. And trogo puts emphasis on the actual chewing/gnawing, so it’s much less likely to be symbolic. In fact, trogo is only used 6 times in the Bible. Five are in John, when mentioning eating the body. And the only other time is Matthew 24:38, which is used literally. That the word trogo was used repeatedly in John for this purpose would support the Catholic view of literal eating.

These links show the definitions, and the verses as well, for the KJV and NAB Bibles:

Phago: studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5315
Trogo: studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5176

I’ve always found this to be a pretty weak argument. While it sounds impressive to appeal to Greek, often times, a word or phrase doesn’t always suggest what a person claims.

A parallel example to the whole trogo/phago claim would be when Jesus says we should “carry our cross daily.” The word “carry” is quite literal and has a very exact meaning which corresponds to a physical act. However, he is not telling people, as we see some doing, to physically carry a cross down the side of the highway (there are people literally carry crosses around today). Jesus was talking about something else entirely (a spiritual lesson: self-denial), not literally carving a cross out of wood, and dragging it around.

 

[Callin]

I’ve always found this to be a pretty weak argument. While it sounds impressive to appeal to Greek, often times, a word or phrase doesn’t always suggest what a person claims.

A parallel example to the whole trogo/phago claim would be when Jesus says we should “carry our cross daily.” The word “carry” is quite literal and has a very exact meaning which corresponds to a physical act. However, he is not telling people, as we see some doing, to physically carry a cross down the side of the highway (there are people literally carry crosses around today). Jesus was talking about something else entirely (a spiritual lesson: self-denial), not literally carving a cross out of wood, and dragging it around.

So you’re saying that not just the eating aspect represents something else, but the chewing aspect as well? Following Jesus is the same thing as chewing/gnawing/crunching him? Nobody’s ever used that lingo on me before.

I don’t think it’s insignificant that John uses trogo (chew) four times within 5 verses, and it only appears in one other place in the Bible. Why go out of his way for a single word like that, when even he uses phago (eat) fourteen times in other parts of his book? Why not just use phago instead? Why the sudden, consecutive distinction for a biblically rare word with a slightly different meaning?

 

[sambos671]

So you’re saying that not just the eating aspect represents something else, but the chewing aspect as well? Following Jesus is the same thing as chewing/gnawing/crunching him? Nobody’s ever used that lingo on me before.

I don’t think it’s insignificant that John uses trogo (chew) four times within 5 verses, and it only appears in one other place in the Bible. Why go out of his way for a single word like that, when even he uses phago (eat) fourteen times in other parts of his book? Why not just use phago instead? Why the sudden, consecutive distinction for a biblically rare word with a slightly different meaning?

Still the term chew doesn’t really show more support for the Eucharist especially when considering the Hillel school of rabbinic thought when Hillel said we must eat Torah. Chew conotates contemplative thorough digestion. So thoroughly digest Jesus and believe in him in his entirety which would match the context of the verses. Again I’m not saying that Eucharist is excluded but you don’t have to take the meaning of eucharist from chew. You do that because of the magisterium which relies heavily on what Christ did during Passover, and the apostolic deposit.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

1Cor2:12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

As you can see the bible is written on two levels. One is the natural, physical, worldly level. Which we might call the literal level
The other is “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” or spiritual discernment. Now it’s quite clear from these texts that we should be seeking the things which the Spirit teaches, because they are from God. When you seek the literal or natural things you will not receive the things of the Spirit because it will be foolishness to you.
So, how does this apply to Jn6:53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Well, I think first we must look at the spiritual meaning of the word “flesh” If we look at Jn1:1 we see 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And in Jn1:14 we see 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. So, what I beleive that Jesus is saying in Jn6:53 is that we must eat, digest, understand the word of God in order for us to have life within us. This appears to be born out both by Peter in 6:68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. and also by Jesus in Jn 6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. You will notice that these words of Jesus pretty much reflect what is said in 1Cor2:12-14

In Christ Richard

 

[MariaG]

My apologies to all. I have not laid out my case well, even for myself.

Back in post 3, believers says that it is figurative.

It is figurative. See signature below.

And with that conclusion, I disagree for the following reason.

The phrase to eat ones flesh and drink ones blood already has and had a figurative meaning among Jews and Arabs of today. It means to do harm to a person, inflict serious injury.

So the people listening to Him would have to have understood Him literally (hence the walking away) or figuratively which would have made no sense at all.

You must harm me and injure me or you have no life in you? That makes no sense at all.

So I disagree completely that one can interpret the passage figuratively. Nice tract on it in CA Library Christ in the Eucharist

If Believers misspoke and did not mean figuratively, I can certainly sympathize.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Doolin]

Forgive me… as I am not the greatest at typing.
So my answers can not be exhaustive.
I do enjoy your discussion on these issues.
Keep it up.
In regards to John:6, I do think that little emphasis is placed on the
transition that Jesus makes with the imagery of Bread to Flesh.
One has to argue that he goes from one symbol to another.
I can’t believe that is very common. It is usual to take a symbolic message and than relate it to the literal. in this case it is Bread (Symbol) to Flesh (literal).
Any thoughts on this?
Blessings,
Doolin

 

[benedictus2]

Not really read my two above posts. And you also left out the bit about it being a spiritual truth.

Sorry but I wasn’t replying to your post. I replied to believer’s post so I don’t know why your post would have any bearig on my reply to his post as I was addressing a specific point he raised.