ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Allowed Bible Wiggle Room

In the search for truth, are we supposed to take everything that the Bible says exactly as it says it, or are we allowed a little wiggle room?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Monk_Brendan on 1/17/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



Ruben,

In verse 35, Jesus tells you the meaning of why he use eating and drinking.

Who is the author of sermons 272: and what makes you think this is transubstantiation.

Remember, the word, "Sacrament." does not mean what the rcc says it means today during Ancient Times.

Everything must be understood in "Context."

May Yahweh lead you to truth,

John
---john on 1/26/16


Yet note So he was addressing believers who DID eat of the bread of life, yet also DID continually hunger and thirst - so either Jesus's statement was a metaphor, or it was literal - meaning the New Testament church was already apostasized and lost (since they still hungered), even within the lifetime of the Apostles.
---StrongAxe on 1/25/16

Note, Pauls also said " Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the lord unworthily will have to answerfor the body and blood of the Lord.For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgments on himself." If a metaphor makes no sense to have judgement on you, does it?
---Ruben on 1/26/16


Brendan, Cluny, and Ruben,

The Lord Jesus Christ died only "Once." my friends only "Once."

Please read, Jn 19:30, 1 Pet 3:18, Rom 6:10, Heb 9:28 and 10:1-14.


Brendan, Cluny, and ruben God is holy, righteous, and pure and you are a sinner who has sin against him and under his wrath.

The Lord Jesus Christ commands you to place your trust in him and repent of your sins my friend to be save, It is not in the Eukarist, but only Jesus alone who died "Once." can save you...
---john9346 on 1/26/16


"The Eucharist is the same sacrifice of the Cross, made present: "The Holy Eucharist is the repetition of the Mystical Supper. It is also the self-same Sacrifice of the Cross, repeated sacramentally."

(Grube, Fr. George The Orthodox Church A to Z


This is an Egregious Error...

the Lord Jesus Christ died only once cluny, brendan, and ruben.

see, Jn 19:30, 1 Pet 3:18, Rom 6:10, Heb 9:28 and 10:1-14.
---john on 1/25/16


[The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood (Augustine, Letter 98, .
---john on 1/25/16

Sermons 272:

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of christ and the chalice the blood of Christ.. These elements brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit.

Sounds like the doctrine of transubstantiation...
---Ruben on 1/25/16




Ruben:

You quoted: I am the bread od life" He who comes to me will never hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty

Yet note that Paul admonished people for "pigging out" during communion, and told them they should eat at home first. So he was addressing believers who DID eat of the bread of life, yet also DID continually hunger and thirst - so either Jesus's statement was a metaphor, or it was literal - meaning the New Testament church was already apostasized and lost (since they still hungered), even within the lifetime of the Apostles.
---StrongAxe on 1/25/16


\\All of the church fathers didn't agree on transubstantiation.\\

Transubstantiation does NOT mean "the bread becomes the Body."

It's an attempt to explain HOW the bread becomes the Body.

Can you grasp the difference?

If you read the liturgies of all the pre-Reformation churches, you will see they all confess that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/25/16


Cluny states, "The pre-reformation churches ALL believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ."

Sir, this is a serious error and assertion.

All of the church fathers didn't agree on transubstantiation.

example below:


[The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).
---john on 1/25/16


john * Sir, Jesus starts this conversation in 26 not 52 this is what I mean by context.

I also mean context, from v 26 to 50 Jesus says " I am the bread od life" He who comes to me will never hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty, in the say way he did at the Sermon of Mount" Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness
for they will be filled(MT 5:6)- Notice he never mention the words, eat, drink, flesh, or blood until v 50 and on..
---Ruben on 1/25/16


john9836, you totally misunderstand.

The pre-reformation churches ALL believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation is an attempt to explain HOW this happens.

Do you get it now?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/25/16




Strongaxe,

First, i appreciate you for answering my question, much respect to you for doing so.

1. The Talmud, the church fathers, and bible study guides are predicated on principles the Scriptures give us in understanding them.

Sir, what is ironic is you just demonstrated the principle "Scripture interprets Scripture." when you said the following:



John 6:56:
Drinking blood is SPECIFICALLY forbidden in both old and new testaments, so if this were literal, Jesus would be commanding breaking the Law (of which he said not one iota would pass away).

Good Work Sir...
---john9346 on 1/25/16


Ruben said, "But he is speaking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? " How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"v52."

Sir, Jesus starts this conversation in 26 not 52 this is what I mean by context.

If you start with 52, you are coming in about the middle of Jesus's Conversation.
---john on 1/25/16


It is important to note that the rcc didn't make transubstantiation a dogma until 1215 through out church history there is never an unanimous agreement on what the council of trent made a requirement for salvation.
---john9346 on 1/24/16


john9346:

You wrote: yes or no for the third time "So to ask you again God commands us to study his word, but he doesn't tell us how to do so is this correct?"

Yes, he tells us to study it. No, he doesn't give much specific instruction on how to do so. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the Jews to create the voluminous writings of the Talmud, nor the Christians the many writings of the Church Fathers, and later bible study guides.

John 6:56:
Drinking blood is SPECIFICALLY forbidden in both old and new testaments, so if this were literal, Jesus would be commanding breaking the Law (of which he said not one iota would pass away).
---StrongAxe on 1/24/16


john9346 *

In context, John 6 is not even talking about the Eukarist because it had not been instituted by Christ at this time.

But he is speaking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? " How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"v52

i believe he meant to actually eat it and you say no he didn't. You are saying you are infallible?

john9346* Not sure of your point of course Jesus meant his own flesh, but verse 63 comes before verse 66 and he tells you his meaning.

Sir, How can Jesus flesh profit nothing, really?

"This bread is MY FLESH which I will give to the world" v51

About v63- vs 60 comes before 63, What was hard for the disciples to understand?
---Ruben on 1/25/16


Ruben asked, "Ok, you are one of the four, why is your interpretaion correct over the other three?"

Actually sir, there are 2 conclusions being "Spiritual and litteral."

In context, John 6 is not even talking about the Eukarist because it had not been instituted by Christ at this time.

Not sure of your point of course Jesus meant his own flesh, but verse 63 comes before verse 66 and he tells you his meaning.
---john9346 on 1/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


Cluny and strongaxe,

I am still waiting for a yes or no to my question I asked both of you gentleman.

Yes or no and straw-man arguments are not answering the question yes or no gentlemen??
---john on 1/24/16



There is not a double T in the word "liTeral".

Glory to Jesus Christ!

---Cluny on 1/24/16


Glad to see you have spell check. That makes you smarter than everyone else.
---Jed on 1/24/16


There is not a double T in the word "liTeral".

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/24/16


Strongaxe,

yes or no for the third time "So to ask you again God commands us to study his word, but he doesn't tell us how to do so is this correct?"


yes or no is this what you are saying??
---john9346 on 1/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Cluny ask, "And did you read what I said when you posted that?"

Yes, so, do you agree or disagree with the understanding of Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East regarding John 6 being litteral yes or no sir??
---john on 1/24/16


john9346:

You wrote: Well, have you read John 6 concerning the Last Supper and gen 1 for the litteral 24 hours days?

So to ask you again God commands us to study his word, but he doesn't tell us how to do so is this correct??


Again with scriptures that have no relevance to the question. There is absolutely no language in John 6 that says it is a metaphor, and there is absolutely no language in Genesis 1 that says it is literal, so I ask you again. What OTHER scriptures than these two offer any specific insight that one of these is a metaphor, but the other is literal?
---StrongAxe on 1/22/16


John- The real question you should be asking is why are there 3 or 4 interpretation.

Ok, you are one of the four, why is your interpretaion correct over the other three?

John- Ruben asked, "If the disciples did not know what Jesus meant, why would he allowed you to leave-v66?"

He didn't this is why he said what he said in verse 63.

v66- says " many of his disciples left and walk with him no more"

And you did not answer my question:

Whose flesh is Jesus talking about?
You keep saying , just listen to want Jesus meant.
---Ruben on 1/23/16


\\Sir, you are doing exactly what I stated prior see below\\

And did you read what I said when you posted that?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/22/16


Send a Free Appreciation Ecard


Hi Jed,

I don't I appreciate your passion for this topic and are you a Pro-life Activist?

I lead a Bible Study Group on Sundays and I am wondering how would you feel about coming to speak on this topic?
---john9346 on 1/22/16


Cluny said, "He told me you're wrong, john. Now what?"

Sir, you are doing exactly what I stated prior see below:



"When received into the Orthodox Church, a convert promises, I will accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother," (Ware, Timothy (1993-04-29).
---john on 1/22/16


\\I know what "Rome." has said this means, but just try to listen to Jesus tell you what he was saying.
---john on 1/22/16\\

I did.

He told me you're wrong, john.

Now what?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/22/16


Ruben asked, "If 3 or four have a differnt interpretation of a scripture verse, who determines the correct one? And why?"

The real question you should be asking is why are there 3 or 4 interpretation.

Ruben asked, "If the disciples did not know what Jesus meant, why would he allowed you to leave-v66?"

He didn't this is why he said what he said in verse 63.

I know what "Rome." has said this means, but just try to listen to Jesus tell you what he was saying.
---john on 1/22/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


Strongaxe ask, "Which scriptures scream "metaphor" for Last Supper, but "literalism" for Genesis 1?

Well, have you read John 6 concerning the Last Supper and gen 1 for the litteral 24 hours days?

So to ask you again God commands us to study his word, but he doesn't tell us how to do so is this correct??
---john9346 on 1/22/16


Rob said, " Monk Brendan, God, not the pope is the Holy Father."

I said that pious Catholics call the Pope Holy Father.

God is three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If I am referring to God, I usually say, "Father God," or, "God the Father."

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 1/22/16


Monk Brendan, God, not the pope is the Holy Father.

The Saints are those people who place their hope, faith, and trust in Christ for their SALVATION!!!
---Rob on 1/22/16


Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one (any more than living in a garage makes you a car), but it's the easiest way for OTHERS to know you are, as Christians won't say they aren't, and many who aren't won't lie and say they are.

No. The easiest way to tell a Christian is by their fruit. If they advocate for godlessness and immorality and they mock true conservative Christian living, that is not a Christian. A Christian should be recognizable, even if they dont readily advertise that they are one.

While people who know they aren't Christians are not likely to lie and say they are, many who think that they are Christians truly aren't. Therein lies the problem with being a Christian in name only.
---Jed on 1/22/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Monk Brendan, an educated adult should be able to easily distinguish between metaphors and literalism given the context they are found in, without having to be told "this is literal" or "this is a metaphor" (hence the point of a metaphor). "Body and blood" is obviously a metaphor to anyone with adult level reading comprehension.

As far as the creation account, even if you are correct and creation did not take six literal days as Genesis states, that would not be a metaphor, that would be an inaccuracy. Saying "this happened in six days" when it really took a different amount of time, is not a metaphor. I don't think you're fully comprehending just what a metaphor is.
---Jed on 1/21/16


john9346:

Because it is vital to allow, "Scripture to interpret Scripture."

Which scriptures scream "metaphor" for Last Supper, but "literalism" for Genesis 1?

Isn't Jesus capable enough to tell us what he meant??

Yes. He also expects us to be able to tell literalism from metaphor without being told.


Jed:

Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one (any more than living in a garage makes you a car), but it's the easiest way for OTHERS to know you are, as Christians won't say they aren't, and many who aren't won't lie and say they are.


Cluny:

NOT calling yourself one doesn't make you not one either. Cats don't call themselves cats.
---StrongAxe on 1/22/16


john9346* Because it is vital to allow, "Scripture to interpret Scripture."

If 3 or four have a differnt interpretation of a scripture verse, who determines the correct one? And why?


john9346* "It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

John 6:63

Isn't Jesus capable enough to tell us what he meant??

Who flesh is Jesus speaking of?

Which words of Jesus give Spirit and life?

If the disciples did not know what Jesus meant, why would he allowed you to leave-v66?
---Ruben on 1/22/16


Brendan said, "I asked, "So, back to the question. Why is it a metaphor when Jesus says it is His Body and Blood, yet some here absolutely believe that creation took six 24 hour days?"

Because it is vital to allow, "Scripture to interpret Scripture."

Are you able to do this sir??


"It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

John 6:63

Isn't Jesus capable enough to tell us what he meant??
---john9346 on 1/21/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Cluny, I never thought that calling myself a Christian made me a Christian. In fact, I have stated repeatedly that one does not become a Christian by merely claiming to be one. I've been very clear about that. Not sure where your confusion comes from. As far as your other claim, that is a flat out lie. I have condemned ISIS at every opportunity on these blogs. And I don't recall the subject of assisted suicide ever being brought up. But I have certainly ly never defended either, if that's what your getting at.
---Jed on 1/21/16


Like you said yourself, Jed, if calling oneself a Christian doesn't make the person one, then the fact that YOU call YOURself a Christian doesn't make YOU one, either.

As the Savior said, "By your own words you will be condemned."

Besides, you've never condemned ISIS or physician assisted-suicide.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/21/16


I asked, "So, back to the question. Why is it a metaphor when Jesus says it is His Body and Blood, yet some here absolutely believe that creation took six 24 hour days?"

I'm still waiting for an answer!

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 1/21/16



\\Then why do Catholics (and their Siamese twin Eastern Orthodox) cling to non-biblical teachings, \\

You're one to talk, Jed.

According to your own criteria, you're not even a Christian.

As you yourself said elsewhere, calling yourself one does not make you one.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

---Cluny on 1/21/16


How so Cluny? In what ways do I personally reject any part of the Bible, or the teachings of Jesus Christ? Please be specific on anything that I have said that contradicts scripture (not your denominational traditions, but actual scripture). When have I encouraged anyone to disobey Jesus Christ?
---Jed on 1/21/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


Strongaxe said, "
All of these passages exhort studying the scriptures, which we can all agree on, but NONE of them give any clues as to just HOW one should interpret those scriptures."

So, strongaxe let me see if I am understanding you correctly, God commands us to do something,yet, he doesn't show us how to do it??



---john9346 on 1/21/16


\\ived into the Orthodox Church, a convert promises, I will accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother," (Ware, Timothy (1993-04-29). \\

john, when I was received into Orthodoxy through the Greek Archdiocese, all I had to do was confess the Nicene Creed.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/21/16


"When received into the Orthodox Church, a convert promises, I will accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother," (Ware, Timothy (1993-04-29).

---john9346 on 1/20/16


john9346:

You wrote: Sir, are you aware of Jn 5:39 and 2 Tim 2:15 and Acts 17:10-11?

Yes, I am familiar with all of them.

I personally mention the Bereans frequently here (i.e. they didn't just take what others preach for granted, but rather studied the scriptures to see whether or not what they were being told was legitimate), because so many people here believe things that the scriptures don't actually teach.

All of these passages exhort studying the scriptures, which we can all agree on, but NONE of them give any clues as to just HOW one should interpret those scriptures.
---StrongAxe on 1/20/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


\\Then why do Catholics (and their Siamese twin Eastern Orthodox) cling to non-biblical teachings, \\

You're one to talk, Jed.

According to your own criteria, you're not even a Christian.

As you yourself said elsewhere, calling yourself one does not make you one.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/21/16


\\ have stated many times on these blogs that the Bible is not the final authority\\

But the Bible doesn't say that, either.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/20/16


Exactly as it says ? Just Go through Revelation and you will get a thousand views
---RichardC on 1/20/16



However, if you knew what the doctrine of Papal Infallibility really said, you would know the pope does not have the authority to override ("supersede" as you put it) the Bible. ---Cluny on 1/20/16


Then why do Catholics (and their Siamese twin Eastern Orthodox) cling to non-biblical teachings, and then cite their man-made denominational tradition as an excuse for their unbiblical teachings?

If I'm not mistaken, both you and other Catholics have stated many times on these blogs that the Bible is not the final authority. If that is the case, then the Bible can be superseded. If something is 100% true and infallible, then logic dictates that it would be held as the final authority.
---Jed on 1/20/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

Paragraphs 85, 47, 100
---john9346 on 1/20/16


Strongaxe states, "
Besides, hermeneutics is "how scripture is interpreted" (i.e. the best practices of fallible human scholars), not "how scripture says it should be interpreted" (i.e. God's instructions on how it should be done)."

Sir, are you aware of Jn 5:39 and 2 Tim 2:15 and Acts 17:10-11?
---john9346 on 1/20/16


john9346:

You wrote: Sir, are you aware of hermeneutics relative to chapter and verse?

I know what hermeneutics is, but I am not sure what you mean by "hermeneutics relative to chapter and verse".

Besides, hermeneutics is "how scripture is interpreted" (i.e. the best practices of fallible human scholars), not "how scripture says it should be interpreted" (i.e. God's instructions on how it should be done).
---StrongAxe on 1/20/16


\\ch. How can the Bible be 100% infallible, if it's authority can be superseded by the opinion of your Pope and your denominational traditions?\\

Since I'm not a Roman Catholic (which you don't seem to be able to grasp), the pope has no authority in Orthodoxy.

However, if you knew what the doctrine of Papal Infallibility really said, you would know the pope does not have the authority to override ("supersede" as you put it) the Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/20/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry



\\ Being repeated three times doesn't make a metaphor become literal. \\

How many times does the Bible have to say something for it to be true?


Only once. I just said that. Of course, metaphor doesn't mean untrue. Why do you have trouble grasping this simple third grade concept?

||Catholics don't even believe in the inerrancy of the Bible||

Where did you get that idea? Certainly from no statement of the Catholic Church.


Actually, yes. From the Catholic Church. How can the Bible be 100% infallible, if it's authority can be superseded by the opinion of your Pope and your denominational traditions? You can't believe both, unless you are double-minded. Are you double-minded, Cluny?
---Jed on 1/20/16


Jed said, "Interestingly, Catholics don't even believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, yet they insist one the total literalness of it?"

You are wrong. Catholics do believe in the inerrant Word of God--the Bible. However, I have been playing by your rules, where almost everyone on these blogs wants BCV about anything. And some even believe that if it isn't in the KJV, it's wrong. What am I supposed to do?

So, back to the question. Why is it a metaphor when Jesus says it is His Body and Blood, yet some here absolutely believe that creation took six 24 hour days?

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 1/20/16


Brendan states, "
I was taught how to read the Bible, and I was taught that if something is repeated 3 times, you should pay attention. Matt 26:27-28, Mk 14:23-24, Luke 22:19-20 ICor 11:23-25 John 6:53-56. All of these speak to what almost everybody on these blogs is trying to wiggle out of."

So, was Augustine, Justin, Polycarp, and polycrate trying to wiggle out of this teaching as well since they did not hold to a litteral eating of Christ's Flesh and Blood?
---john9346 on 1/20/16


\\ Being repeated three times doesn't make a metaphor become literal. \\

How many times does the Bible have to say something for it to be true?

||Catholics don't even believe in the inerrancy of the Bible||

Where did you get that idea? Certainly from no statement of the Catholic Church.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/20/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Monk, I am not arguing that those scriptures are not true. Once in the Bible is enough to make any statement true. Being repeated three times doesn't make a metaphor become literal. The term "sunset" is repeated in the Bible more than three times. Are you saying that the sun literally sets down because it is repeated in the Bible? Of course not. The setting sun is imagery. The actual sun is fixed at the center of our solar system. Interestingly, Catholics don't even believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, yet they insist one the total literalness of it?
---Jed on 1/19/16


Yes we should pay attention to all the Bible says. But that does not make Jesus into literal bread.

John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Being the light of the world does not make Jesus the sun in the sky.

Same difference. But the RCC cannot have it mean anything else. So much of their doctrine and teaching is bound up in this single understanding.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 1/19/16


Strongaxe states, "Since the Bible is not a legal document, much of its wording is ambiguous, who gets to decide how it is "meant to be taken"?"

Sir, are you aware of hermeneutics relative to chapter and verse?
---john9346 on 1/19/16


Rob said, "Monk Brendan, who is The Holy Father, how and by whom is a person declared to be a Saint, and who is the mediator between God and man?"

Among pious Catholics, the Pope is called the Holy Father.

If someone is declared a saint, it is after a period of very intensive scrutiny. There must be two miracles credited to the candidate, and he must have lived a holy life.

Jesus is the only mediator between God the Father and man. Saints will (hopefully) pray for us, and the Virgin Mary will intercede with Jesus, but it is God alone who makes final decisions.

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 1/19/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


Jed, No one likes a show off. I did learn about metaphor and simile in grade school too (and yes, it was a Roman Catholic grade school

I was taught how to read the Bible, and I was taught that if something is repeated 3 times, you should pay attention. Matt 26:27-28, Mk 14:23-24, Luke 22:19-20 ICor 11:23-25 John 6:53-56. All of these speak to what almost everybody on these blogs is trying to wiggle out of.

Look them up in the King James if you don't believe me

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 1/19/16


Monk Brendan, who is The Holy Father, how and by whom is a person declared to be a Saint, and who is the mediator between God and man?
---Rob on 1/19/16


Catholics can't seem to understand the difference between an inaccuracy and a metaphor. The Bible is 100% inerrant. That doesn't mean everything is 100% literal. This is a 2nd grade English lesson in a public school. I guess Catholic schools left the lesson on metaphores out of their curriculum. Metaphor doesn't mean inaccurate. And it doesn't mean there is any wiggle room for interpretation. The Bible speaks plainly and simply in a way that any logical adult should comprehend. A grown adult should be able to recognize metaphores. Confusion comes when the reader lacks a basic grade level reading comprehension, or when they attempt to use scripture to support a preconceived belief rather than using scripture to define their beliefs.
---Jed on 1/19/16


It depends on what you mean by wiggle room. There is often room for disagreement. But that would be small disagreements.

Leon and Strong ax make great points. You cannot use just one scripture. You must compare other scriptures on the same topics. You must also look at the context. If you fail to do this you can make false conclusions.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 1/18/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Yes we are allowed wiggle room, in terms of "scope for freedom of thought". The Father's word is deep, and allows freedom of thought and/or expression. It speaks to us in a way that we can understand, a way that is most conducive to our personal growth in Him. Father created man to be individuals, with freedom of choice, choice requires freethinking. As individuals as long as we can honestly state, that we believe, that our thoughts reflect His word, as well as the mind of Christ, and that those thoughts are conducive to our being conformed to His image, only the Father is qualified to judge them, or that which is produced by them. For although He will judge us according to His word, His thoughts are higher than ours.
---joseph on 1/19/16


Monk_Brendan:

You wrote: why does "This is My Body...This is My Blood" not mean exactly what it says

Because if it were PHYSICALLY flesh and blood, eating it would violate both Jewish so teaching it would make one "the least in the kingdom of heaven". Even the few laws the Apostles gave gentiles forbade eating blood.

Jesus frequently spoke in metaphor, conveying deep underlying reality that was not, in fact, physical reality. He was not a plant. Pharisees did not hatch from eggs and were not made of plaster. His believers down through the ages all physically die, etc.

We all understand metaphor in every other language and literary form. Why is the Bible alone incapable of using it?
---StrongAxe on 1/19/16


monk: What you call "wiggle room" is called different names by others, such as "poetic license" or "higher criticism".

I once preached a sermon entitled "designer religion" which addressed this topic. The central thesis was that when we discard the scriptures we don't like or reinterpret them as we see fit, the final result is a reflection of ourselves rather than of God.


---jerry6593 on 1/19/16


///...why does "This is My Body...This is My Blood" not mean exactly what it says... anyone who believes any different--the bread and wine don't become Body and Blood...is walking down that broad path.[?]---Monk_Brendan on 1/18/16///

People have been using "figures of speech" (metaphors) for thousands of years. That's exactly what Jesus was doing. His disciples knew He didn't mean the bread & wine were literally His body & blood. Yet, they ate the bread & drank wine as a memorial to the horrific sacrifice He was about to make for mankind. It's that simple. God gives us all common sense.

If I said it's raining dogs & cats I would hope you would immediately know I didn't mean that literally.
---Leon on 1/18/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Leon:

Unfortunately, there's no way to distinguish from "being led by the Holy Spirit" from "being led by a spirit of delusion", as there are MANY people who believe the former, but because they contradict each other, many of them must actually be led by the latter. (E.g. Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God - they say you should pray about it and God will tell you if it is. The fact that most Mormons believe God has indeed done so should tell you all you need to know.)


micha9344:

Since the Bible is not a legal document, much of its wording is ambiguous, who gets to decide how it is "meant to be taken"?
---StrongAxe on 1/18/16


Leon said, "...The Bible isn't for our private interpretations (wigglings). Rather, born again believers are taught from the Bible by the Holy Spirit's "straight & narrow" leading. Broad is the way that leads to destruction..."

Great!! All the answers I wanted to hear. If you believe this, then why does "This is My Body...This is My Blood" not mean exactly what it says, with no room for private interpretation. You were saying Leon, "Broad is the way that leads to destruction..."

It seems to me that anyone who believes any different--the bread and wine don't become Body and Blood, for instance is walking down that broad path.

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 1/18/16


///In the search for truth, are we supposed to take everything that the Bible says exactly as it says it, or are we allowed a little wiggle room? ---Monk_Brendan on 1/17/16///

Allowed by who? The Bible isn't for our private interpretations (wigglings). Rather, born again believers are taught from the Bible by the Holy Spirit's "straight & narrow" leading. Broad is the way that leads to destruction...
---Leon on 1/18/16


No,there is no room for a little wiggle the Bible is firm. Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction,and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life,and only a few find it. The best example is Jesus for He never wavered from the path God had given Him to walk nor did He ignore God's directions to Him. God Bless
---Darlene_1 on 1/18/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Brendan,

Let Athanasius and Irenaeus answer your question.

"These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness."

Athanasius

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Ireneus
---john9346 on 1/18/16


Brendan sir,

Have you not read 2 Tim 3:16-17??
---john on 1/18/16


There is no "wiggle room" in God's Word.
His Word is to be taken as God meant it to be taken.
Historical narrative is historical narrative,
Poetry is poetry.
Words, in their context, have specific meanings.
---micha9344 on 1/18/16


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.