Why Do We Take The Bible Literally ?

[benedictus2]

Well I tried. Your blood is not on my hands. It’s time to shake the dust off of my sandles and move on.

In Christ Richard

Actually. It is the other way around.

But I am not shaking the dust of my feet as yet.

I am sure God desires you to see the Truth that is why He has brought you here to CAF so I leave you in His Hands.

One day the penny will drop.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Well I tried. Your blood is not on my hands. It’s time to shake the dust off of my sandles and move on.

In Christ Richard

Is this another way of saying that your reasoning was so flawed that no one was convinced?

It would be so wonderful if this failure to convince caused some reflection on the subject ~ perhaps a light would go on that equating “graven image” with “Eucharist” is WRONG!

 

[benedictus2]

Is this another way of saying that your reasoning was so flawed that no one was convinced?

It would be so wonderful if this failure to convince caused some reflection on the subject ~ perhaps a light would go on that equating “graven image” with “Eucharist” is WRONG!

Be patient Melanie. More obstinate and deliberately blind men have seen the Truth. It took time but finally it happened. And how wonderful that moment when they finally stepped into the light.

God will work His wonders in His time.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Be patient Melanie. More obstinate and deliberately blind men have seen the Truth. It took time but finally it happened. And how wonderful that moment when they finally stepped into the light.

God will work His wonders in His time.

Thanks Benedictus. Patience is not one of my virtues, but I’m working on it. I’ve historically been one of the types to pray “God give me patience and I want it right now!”

I believe that the many former Catholics who frequent this forum are maintaining a connection, however tenuous, to the faith. They may be content where they are now, they may have a variety of reasons (not always religious ones) for staying where they are. But they come here because they wonder…

I can deal with that. I would prefer “right now” but I can accept “later”!

God Bless, Melanie

 

[sambos671]

Well I tried. Your blood is not on my hands. It’s time to shake the dust off of my sandles and move on.

In Christ Richard

I often encounter Fundalmentalist and Evangelicals who accuse Catholics for idol worship whether it be the Eucharist or statues (to include myself for a time). This verse in Exodus 20 is quoted just before a vehement attack

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Yet these people claim to say that they are bible only. Yet I find this verse in 1 Kings

11 The word of the LORD came to Solomon: 12 “As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, carry out my regulations and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfill through you the promise I gave to David your father. 13 And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel.”

Showing Gods approval for Solomon but in this Temple we find this

23 In the inner sanctuary he made a pair of cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits [l] high. 24 One wing of the first cherub was five cubits long, and the other wing five cubits—ten cubits from wing tip to wing tip. 25 The second cherub also measured ten cubits, for the two cherubim were identical in size and shape. 26 The height of each cherub was ten cubits. 27 He placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple, with their wings spread out. The wing of one cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the other touched the other wall, and their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. 28 He overlaid the cherubim with gold.

There were Statues of Angles in the Sancturary where the priest would bow down before God! So According to them the angles that spread accross the Sancturary wing tip touching one wall and another wing tip touch the other wall are idols because they are made in the image of things in heaven!!! Yet God did not condemn Solomon for building them. Ah but they say the Isrealites didn’t worship them. Yes, but they bowed down before them and it would look like worship of them? Catholics also have statues of saints which are in heaven and don’t claim to worship them. I find inconsistency with bible only believers with regard to this consept. So the Eucharist which is that precious body and blood of Christ is something Christ did himself and he instituted it. So it can’t be idolitry since it is Christ himself.

 

[nbtb1348]

I often encounter Fundalmentalist and Evangelicals who accuse Catholics for idol worship whether it be the Eucharist or statues (to include myself for a time). This verse in Exodus 20 is quoted just before a vehement attack

Yet these people claim to say that they are bible only. Yet I find this verse in 1 Kings Showing Gods approval for Solomon but in this Temple we find this There were Statues of Angles in the Sancturary where the priest would bow down before God! So According to them the angles that spread accross the Sancturary wing tip touching one wall and another wing tip touch the other wall are idols because they are made in the image of things in heaven!!! Yet God did not condemn Solomon for building them. Ah but they say the Isrealites didn’t worship them. Yes, but they bowed down before them and it would look like worship of them? Catholics also have statues of saints which are in heaven and don’t claim to worship them. I find inconsistency with bible only believers with regard to this consept. So the Eucharist which is that precious body and blood of Christ is something Christ did himself and he instituted it. So it can’t be idolitry since it is Christ himself.

And you know, some times God’s word is confusing at first or second glance. I can’t wait to get to heaven to see how all of us had at least slightly flawed theology! All of us who make it there will have some holy laughs.

Anyway, regarding God’s instructions about what was to be in the temple, I’ll state the obvious: When God wants to tell his people to make an image for his temple, He’s allowed to do it, while at the same time forbidding all other graven images, right??

 

[nbtb1348]

I often encounter Fundalmentalist and Evangelicals who accuse Catholics for idol worship whether it be the Eucharist or statues (to include myself for a time). This verse in Exodus 20 is quoted just before a vehement attack

Yet these people claim to say that they are bible only. Yet I find this verse in 1 Kings Showing Gods approval for Solomon but in this Temple we find this There were Statues of Angles in the Sancturary where the priest would bow down before God! So According to them the angles that spread accross the Sancturary wing tip touching one wall and another wing tip touch the other wall are idols because they are made in the image of things in heaven!!! Yet God did not condemn Solomon for building them. Ah but they say the Isrealites didn’t worship them. Yes, but they bowed down before them and it would look like worship of them? Catholics also have statues of saints which are in heaven and don’t claim to worship them. I find inconsistency with bible only believers with regard to this consept. So the Eucharist which is that precious body and blood of Christ is something Christ did himself and he instituted it. So it can’t be idolitry since it is Christ himself.

I know you couldn’t mean this, but it sounds like you are saying that the benefit of having other authorities equal to Scripture is that those authorities could, in fact, say it is OK to make images of people and put them in houses of worshp, even though God commanded us not to. You didn’t mean that, did you?

 

[sambos671]

I know you couldn’t mean this, but it sounds like you are saying that the benefit of having other authorities equal to Scripture is that those authorities could, in fact, say it is OK to make images of people and put them in houses of worshp, even though God commanded us not to. You didn’t mean that, did you?

No I didn’t say that at all. What I am saying is that there is inconsistancy with bible only believers within their own theology when it comes to the bible. And as far as authorities there is one teaching comprised of what is in scripture and what is in tradition. Together they are the fulness of christian instruction. So the Catholic will have greater resources than their own opinion when it comes to understanding what scripture says. And scriptures and tradition do not contradict each other. They together are the entire deposit. When you have half the deposit you spend more time in speculation. Which is why its so problematic for protestants.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I often encounter Fundalmentalist and Evangelicals who accuse Catholics for idol worship whether it be the Eucharist or statues (to include myself for a time). This verse in Exodus 20 is quoted just before a vehement attack

Yet these people claim to say that they are bible only. Yet I find this verse in 1 Kings Showing Gods approval for Solomon but in this Temple we find this There were Statues of Angles in the Sancturary where the priest would bow down before God! So According to them the angles that spread accross the Sancturary wing tip touching one wall and another wing tip touch the other wall are idols because they are made in the image of things in heaven!!! Yet God did not condemn Solomon for building them. Ah but they say the Isrealites didn’t worship them. Yes, but they bowed down before them and it would look like worship of them? Catholics also have statues of saints which are in heaven and don’t claim to worship them. I find inconsistency with bible only believers with regard to this consept. So the Eucharist which is that precious body and blood of Christ is something Christ did himself and he instituted it. So it can’t be idolitry since it is Christ himself.

Hello Sambos671 I had pretty much decided to leave the dialog on this thread when I noticed your post and I thought it deserved a reply. Solomon’s temple, sanctuary on earth was actually a pattern of a pattern. In other words it was a copy of the mobile sanctuary that Moses carried around in the wilderness and this sanctuary was shown to Moses by God as these verses show

Ex25:8And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. 9According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

Heb8:1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

So Moses made this tabernacle after the pattern of the tabernacle shown him and this pattern was of the sanctuary that is in heaven. Now this sanctuary had three compartments. The first compartment was the outer courtyard which contained the altar of burnt offerings and the laver for ritual cleansing then moving into the sanctuary itself which is called the holy place we see on the left the candlestick which symbolised Jesus, the light of the world. On the right was the table of shewbread, which symbolised Jesus, THE BREAD OF LIFE and right in the middle before the vale which separates the two compartments was the altar of burnt incence which symbolised the prayers of the saints. Beyond the vale was the most holy place. In this compartment was the Ark of the Covenant. Inside of which was kept the tables of the commandments, Aaron’s staff that budded and some manna. On top of the Ark was what is called the mercy seat. This was comprised of the angels that you mention. Between these cherubim on the Ark was the place where God dwelt. The Shekinah Glory was actually present and dwelt there. Now no one was allowed into the tabernacle but the Levitical priests and absolutely no one was allowed into the most holy place except the high priest once a year on the day of atonement and he was very busy on that day ministering the blood. So no one was bowing dow to idols. And this tabernacle was set up by God Himself, not by Solomon, so I guess He can set up His house the way He wants to.
Gen3:24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. The only other place we find Cherubim in the bible is in this verse. Now you will notice that between the Cherubim here is a flaming sword. We find out what this flaming sword is all about in Heb4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. We know that Jesus is the word made flesh Jn1:14And 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, the word of God, Jesus Christ is showing us how to get back to the Gaden and the tree of life. And this is exactly what the sanctuary and it’s services and it’s furniture show us. One last point, the shewbread which is symbolic of Jesus The Bread of Life was not distributed to the population because the Word had not yet been made flesh.

In Christ Richard

 

[sambos671]

Hello Sambos671 I had pretty much decided to leave the dialog on this thread when I noticed your post and I thought it deserved a reply. Solomon’s temple, sanctuary on earth was actually a pattern of a pattern. In other words it was a copy of the mobile sanctuary that Moses carried around in the wilderness and this sanctuary was shown to Moses by God as these verses show

Ex25:8And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. 9According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

Heb8:1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

So Moses made this tabernacle after the pattern of the tabernacle shown him and this pattern was of the sanctuary that is in heaven. Now this sanctuary had three compartments. The first compartment was the outer courtyard which contained the altar of burnt offerings and the laver for ritual cleansing then moving into the sanctuary itself which is called the holy place we see on the left the candlestick which symbolised Jesus, the light of the world. On the right was the table of shewbread, which symbolised Jesus, THE BREAD OF LIFE and right in the middle before the vale which separates the two compartments was the altar of burnt incence which symbolised the prayers of the saints. Beyond the vale was the most holy place. In this compartment was the Ark of the Covenant. Inside of which was kept the tables of the commandments, Aaron’s staff that budded and some manna. On top of the Ark was what is called the mercy seat. This was comprised of the angels that you mention. Between these cherubim on the Ark was the place where God dwelt. The Shekinah Glory was actually present and dwelt there. Now no one was allowed into the tabernacle but the Levitical priests and absolutely no one was allowed into the most holy place except the high priest once a year on the day of atonement and he was very busy on that day ministering the blood. So no one was bowing dow to idols. And this tabernacle was set up by God Himself, not by Solomon, so I guess He can set up His house the way He wants to.
Gen3:24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. The only other place we find Cherubim in the bible is in this verse. Now you will notice that between the Cherubim here is a flaming sword. We find out what this flaming sword is all about in Heb4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. We know that Jesus is the word made flesh Jn1:14And 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, the word of God, Jesus Christ is showing us how to get back to the Gaden and the tree of life. And this is exactly what the sanctuary and it’s services and it’s furniture show us. One last point, the shewbread which is symbolic of Jesus The Bread of Life was not distributed to the population because the Word had not yet been made flesh.

In Christ Richard

So, in relation to the tabernacle as being a representation of heaven and God’s plan is beautiful. But just a dogmatic as Fudalmentalist who keep shoving Exodus down the Catholic throat for reverencing icons there is a hypocracy when it comes to what the bible actually shows. The Levites reveranced every item in the temple beause they were set apart for a specified purpose to God (the very definition of Holy). So their is lieniancy to the Levites but condemnation to the Catholic. Which is my point. Catholics don’t worship saints they take those aspects they find inspiring in following God and apply them to themselves. How many Bible only people would like to immitate David as he defeated Goliath. Icons represent the ideal things to think on consentrate on. “whatever is good and noble think on these things” Is the idea of Catholics.

 

[jake23]

LOL! as a past protestant who studied at Liberty Unieversity to be a pastor before I found my way home to Christ church I was amazed at the blindness of the protestant faith! After studying the original languages, History, and ther meanings in there time I came to find that they where no where close to the interpretations of the protestant beliefs! I felt so silly how far off I was when interprating the bible. Example: I a person 60 years ago where to read a text that said that a certain man was gay the would have understood it as the man was happy; If you where to of a younger generation reading that text today would have interpreted it as the man was homosexual. Of course the Biblical text is far more complex than this but you should get the idea! Educate yourseld with an open heart and you will find your way home to the Catholic church as I did!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

LOL! as a past protestant who studied at Liberty Unieversity to be a pastor before I found my way home to Christ church I was amazed at the blindness of the protestant faith! After studying the original languages, History, and ther meanings in there time I came to find that they where no where close to the interpretations of the protestant beliefs! I felt so silly how far off I was when interprating the bible. Example: I a person 60 years ago where to read a text that said that a certain man was gay the would have understood it as the man was happy; If you where to of a younger generation reading that text today would have interpreted it as the man was homosexual. Of course the Biblical text is far more complex than this but you should get the idea! Educate yourseld with an open heart and you will find your way home to the Catholic church as I did!

I don’t understand what you are LOL about I certainly don’t find anythig funny here. You talk of the blindness of the (Protestant faith). Well there are many Protestant denominations which have differing opinions and doctrines. You were probably a member of only one and can only be subjective in your appraisal, which renders your statement about the blindness of the (protestant faith) invalid. You say you studied languages, history, and their meanings. Yet you give no biblical examples instead you give an example of gay and homosexual which has nothing to do with anything. You say the biblical texts are more complicated and they probably are. But I would like to see the texts that have shown you that the Protestant faith is wrong and the Catholic faith is right.

In Christ Richard

 

[MariaG]

I don’t understand what you are LOL about I certainly don’t find anythig funny here. You talk of the blindness of the (Protestant faith). Well there are many Protestant denominations which have differing opinions and doctrines. You were probably a member of only one and can only be subjective in your appraisal, which renders your statement about the blindness of the (protestant faith) invalid. You say you studied languages, history, and their meanings. Yet you give no biblical examples instead you give an example of gay and homosexual which has nothing to do with anything. You say the biblical texts are more complicated and they probably are. But I would like to see the texts that have shown you that the Protestant faith is wrong and the Catholic faith is right.

In Christ Richard

I belonged to several, does that mean I could say that statement?

For me, it hinged on John 6. I was in a fundamentalist Evangelical Church, had just got done with a bible study on genesis. From which the conclusion was a young earth theory because scripture said 6 days.

Yet when we then went on to study John, and got to John 6, it was all symbolic. The hypocrisy of fitting scripture to fit ones personal belief system was too much for me. And then when I actually studied John 6 and learned more like the fact that it couldn’t be figurative at all because there was already a figurative use of eat my flesh and drink my blood, that sealed the deal for me.

So there is at least one group of Protestants, symbolic only ones, where scripture shows that Protestants are wrong and CAtholics are right, yet many will still argue against this. Hence they are still blinded. Yet I too, find nothing funny about it only find it incredibly sad.

Which one are you? Sacramental Protestant or non? Real Presence or Symbolic?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[maryrev12]

I don’t understand what you are LOL about I certainly don’t find anythig funny here. You talk of the blindness of the (Protestant faith). Well there are many Protestant denominations which have differing opinions and doctrines. You were probably a member of only one and can only be subjective in your appraisal, which renders your statement about the blindness of the (protestant faith) invalid. You say you studied languages, history, and their meanings. Yet you give no biblical examples instead you give an example of gay and homosexual which has nothing to do with anything. You say the biblical texts are more complicated and they probably are. But I would like to see the texts that have shown you that the Protestant faith is wrong and the Catholic faith is right.

In Christ Richard

Hey- hope you don’t mind me jumping in- but I was a member of

baptist
methodist
presbyterian
church of God
4 square
interdenominational
episcopalian

you will find that some of these churches and the catholic church agree - for instance, John 3:16 to a catholic means literally what it says… Church of God and 4 Square agree- but the other churches have varying opinions, mainly that the first time you repent to the Lord, your free will is forever subjugated by Gods will … you can not of your own free will choose to reject Christ . Now, Heb 10 :26 and many other verses conflict with that teaching, yet there you have it.

On sola scriptura- only the catholic church believes the literal scriptural teaching. All these churches believe that- contrary to scripture- that the Bible is the sole rule of our faith. The Bible no where claims that, but does repeatedly in multiple places commands us to submit to the authority of the Church, that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The NT no where ( besides the book of revelation) commands that anything be written down to teach with. The church was the accepted authority- and even Martin Luther wrote that we owe thanks to the Catholic church for giving us the Bible! The Bible has no authority of itself- yet sola scriptura says just that. Jesus received authority from the Father- the Apostles received there authority from Jesus, and there successors passed that authority down to the leaders today. (The apostle Paul cautions Timothy in regards to this gift to be careful who you lay your hands on…) The Bible received its authority from the Church- the Church founded by our Lord Jesus! It can not be the other way around!

Also, in choosing church leaders- all the non cath. groups above go contrary to scripture. The leaders of the Church are to choose the leaders. This is very scriptural, look at it. Yet for non cath. the congregation votes them in… this is not scriptural procedure.

these are some examples… if you want more let me know, I’m willing to go there

take care
MaryRev12

 

[jake23]

Rich I don’t need to give a verse! The bible in its intirity tells us to follow goos church of the catholic faith. The gay thing was not relevant but the point of it was and for that to go over your head means that you do not search for christ with an open heart or you would truly study the history and find that the catholic church from the beginning when the first pope the apostle peter started the church to now has always been the church of christ and anything else has some truths but overall is a three hundred year counterfit!

 

[MelanieAnne]

Tuning in late, I heard just a piece of a program the other day on TV which actually addressed this issue. I haven’t yet had time to study it yet within the context of various Biblical passages that generate so much controversy so I won’t discuss any analysis of the text.

What I will do is pass on what was said so that we all can do our own study. The gist of the discussion ~ which got my attention because it involved whether or not some things that Jesus said were to be taken literally or not ~ was that Jesus never left a situation in confusion. That makes sense, if nothing else, that God, who is a God of order, would decline to leave a situation in chaos and confusion.

For example ~

• If He said something figurative, and it was meant to be taken figuratively, but the people listening to Him were taking it literally, He made it clear what He meant.
• Similarly, if He said something literally, and it was meant to be taken literally, but the people listening to Him were taking it figuratively, He made it clear what He meant.

There are other variables, but you get the idea. Jesus made His teachings clear to His listeners. If they got the wrong idea, He straightened them out. What that says to me, in studying the Bible, although of course as Catholics we have other resources upon which to rely, is that, at the very least, we cannot depend on a single verse of scripture to “prove our point”. We have to look at an entire situation. What did Jesus say? How did his listeners react? What did He say after that?

Without the proper context, many things can be asserted and many interpretations can be derived. A single phrase or verse may not be sufficient to convey an accurate meaning when the subject is controversial. I’m sure that many have studied the Bible far better than I, but the parts that I have studied most closely confirm those things that Jesus said that I, as a Catholic, take literally. I believe, when I took the Eucharist this morning, that it was what Jesus said it was. I believe Him.

 

[SyCarl]

For example ~

• If He said something figurative, and it was meant to be taken figuratively, but the people listening to Him were taking it literally, He made it clear what He meant.
• Similarly, if He said something literally, and it was meant to be taken literally, but the people listening to Him were taking it figuratively, He made it clear what He meant.

This certainly does not appear the case elsewhere in John.

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
(John 2:19-22 NASB)

The Jews took Jesus literally and He did not correct them, although John explains to the reader.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?”
(John 3:3-9 NASB)

Jesus did not explain what He meant and Nicodemus did not understand.

Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” She *said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? “You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” The woman *said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw.”
(John 4:10-15 NASB)

Again Jesus did not explain to the woman.

 

[jake23]

Are you protestants here to learn about christs church aka the catholic church or are you here to amuse us with ignorant uneducated remarks and misconstrude interpretations of the bible? Your not going to convince catholics to go astray from christs church so either enter the sight to learn or move on!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

This certainly does not appear the case elsewhere in John.

The Jews took Jesus literally and He did not correct them, although John explains to the reader.

Jesus did not explain what He meant and Nicodemus did not understand.

Again Jesus did not explain to the woman.

I would add
Matt13:10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Also, in Jn 6:53 Jesus says: Then 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. And in verse 63 He tells us exactly what He means 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. So Jesus is telling us that it is His words that we are to digest and understand and it is His words that give us life. The flesh of the son of man is explained in Jn 1:14And 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. When He says in verse 63 that the flesh profiteth nothing He is talking of the spirit of the world or sin
Rom7:25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Rom8:8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

We must digest the WORD OF GOD because it is through the WORD OF GOD that we are saved Jn17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. And it is only through Jesus THE WORD OF GOD that we attain eternal life.Jn14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In Christ Richard

 

[MelanieAnne]

SyCarl,

It’s handy for you that you have had time to study the entire New Testament, or at least all the Gospels, in the time since I have posted that information.

Since I don’t have the same superhuman skills, it will take me more time to study them. Don’t depend on my agreeing with you or take the lack of an immediate response as some sort of tacit agreement.

It would be refreshing to see someone take something offered up in the spirit in which it was offered, instead of using it as another means to rip and tear. But that’s not on my head. Good luck with that.