Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
CatholicExchange.com ^ | April 17, 2007 | Mary Harwell Sayler

Posted on 04/18/2007 11:20:10 AM PDT by Salvation

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 last
To: Diego1618
I'm sorry. Your post is "exhibit #1" in why Christ gave us His Church to help us understand His Word.

I'm going to apply the much abused Occam's Razor to this situation:

Which is more likely:

That Christ rose on the Third Day after His Crucifixion as He said He would...

John 2:18 The Jews, therefore, answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou shew unto us, seeing thou dost these things? 19 Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up. 20 The Jews then said: Six and forty years was this temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up in three days? 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen again from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this: and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had said.

That He was removed from the Cross on the eve of the Sabbath (setting of the sun on the day before Saturday) as recorded and the women came to prepare His Body after the Sabbath (rising of the sun on Sunday) as recorded and found the tomb empty.

or

That the Catholic Church and every splinter Christian denomination since is wrong despite 2000 years of study and debate.

201 posted on 04/20/2007 7:40:09 AM PDT by pgyanke (RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES ANYWAY... WHY WAIT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
Funny. I keep asking for Catholic sources for your quotes and the only place I can reference for the quotes (according to Google) is "SabbathTruth.com". They are referenced exactly as you have posted them (repeatedly) so I doubt you are doing anything more than cutting and pasting from this site.

Once again, as was shown with your first attempt on this thread, your source is suspect. Point me to a Catholic source for your quotes of Catholic theologians or bug off.

202 posted on 04/20/2007 7:47:02 AM PDT by pgyanke (RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES ANYWAY... WHY WAIT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

Indeed, it has. But, since you post this excerpt - presumably - for our edification, let’s use it. Notice that Fr. O’Brien makes the claim that there is nothing citable in the New Testament specifically “authorizing” the change. This is true, as far as it goes. But, as other posters have already noted, there is New Testament evidence that Sunday worship had already begun to occur (Acts 20:7, Colossians 2:16). Fr. O’Brien goes on to state that, while there may be no proof text regarding Sunday worship, it nevertheless had become customary even during the Apostolic Age to have the weekly observances transferred to Sunday. You cite his quote about lack of biblical directives in this matter as a self-damning piece of evidence, while you evidently have failed to note that he clearly notes a first century origin for the practice. He bases his source for the authority to change to Sunday worship on the authority of the Church itself. The early Church thought it more fitting to commemorate the completion of the passion and resurrection of Jesus than the completion of the original acts of creation, and, by its own authority, vested in the Apostles, it did just that.

And why not? The entire New Testament is riddled with examples of the abrogation of Jewish dietary laws, circumcision and the like. The command in Exodus 20 to worship God is certainly universal in its scope, but the command to worship on the Sabbath day is restricted to the Israelites, as it is a commemoration for them only. The specific day, as opposed to the principal of worshiping God, is akin to the dietary laws and other things that the Church dispensed with on its own authority coupled with direction for God.

The problem here is that the Catholic Church recognizes the authority of the Apostles and their successors to actually govern the Church, while you obviously do not. Nearly all of the major debates here on FR come down to the question of “authority.” Clearly, though, if Sunday worship was pretty near universal by the second century, and there is nothing in Scripture directly commanding it, then such a change must have come from the authority of the Church at this very early date. It is incumbent on you, at this point, to demonstrate in the 21st Century how you know better than our Christian ancestors in the 1st and 2nd Centuries in this and so many other matters. You would do well to demonstrate further how the Providence of God is not fatally violated by ruptures in “essentials” from such a very early date that were only rectified 15 centuries or more from the Church’s founding. So much for Matthew 28:16-20.

The same authority of the Church demonstrated in Matthew 28, John 20 and 21, Acts 15, and 1Cor 11, among others, evidently felt itself competent to address the issue of which day would be utlized to fulfill the Christian obligation to worship God in common. It is the same authority, by the way, that was in play when the 4th century Church codified the canon of Scripture. That you recognize the Book they canonized without recognizing their role as authentic interpreters of revelation overall is the heart of your problem. That you do not recognize anything enacted by the early Church that does not find itself specifically laid out in “shalt and shalt not” form in the New Testament leaves you with a very tenuous understanding of Scripture as a whole. It robs you of so much benefit from the Scriptures you cherish, as 2Peter 3:16 makes plain.

Bottom line: it does not matter that you cannot find a direct command in Scripture ordering the Apostles to change the common worship day. History says they did. The fact that they did this on their own authority (guided, presumably, by the Holy Spirit), in similar fashion to what they did in Acts 15 about other matters, speaks volumes.


203 posted on 04/20/2007 8:12:44 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

VERY nicely put. God bless you.


204 posted on 04/20/2007 8:47:34 AM PDT by pgyanke (RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES ANYWAY... WHY WAIT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; wideawake; sandyeggo
Some may write off the whole Bible as being merely symbolic or allegorical, while others take every word as the kind of literal truth you get when you say something like, "The fire is hot." Symbolically, that same fire represents the power, warmth, and enthusiastic fervor poured into Christians by the Holy Spirit. You can approach the flame literally or figuratively, but either way, the fire is "true."

No one in the world has ever, does now, or will ever, interpret the every single word of the Bible as being of the same sense as "the fire is hot." This is a straw man created to justify the rejection of things recorded in the Bible that are outside the purview of modern science and outside our own experiences (the six day creation, the age of the ancients, Noah's Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc.).

It's a good thing those liberal German Protestants discovered how primitive and exclusively allegorical the Bible is. What would Catholics have done without them?

205 posted on 04/20/2007 9:00:30 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Please pray for the refu'ah shelemah of Yehudah Ben Rivqah, father of Binyamin Jolkovsky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Thank you. God bless you and yours, as well.

Christ is risen!


206 posted on 04/20/2007 9:46:05 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

I just had a chance to read this and want to say thanks for posting it.

I’m always grateful for contributions like this.


207 posted on 04/20/2007 9:58:56 AM PDT by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Hmm, it appears that your whole trailer park is waiting with bated breath for my reply.

Saying that you have the Holy Spirit within you is not enough. Being baptized is not enough. Wandering around waving your hands in the air proclaiming that you are saved and posturing like the Pharisees in front of the church isn’t enough.

Actually read your Bible instead of pounding it. It quite clearly states that sheep will be separated from the goats on the right hand versus the left hand. And the judgement of separation will be deeds - judged by God Almighty, not by any human being, and by the rules of God Almighty, not any human being - after your death and not before.

This notion of saving one’s soul before death would be amusing on a juvenile level, worthy of National Lampoon type snickers, if it wasn’t so deadly serious and imperilling of your immortal soul. Even St. Peter professed Faith and Hope - the hope of eternal salvation, but not the certainty since the Judgement does not belong to him, but rather to Him.

I have asked many here within the reference of these passages how they think that they’ll fare when faced with placement with either the sheep or the goats. I either get stuffy silence or aggrieved anger. If you don’t feed the least of His children when they’re hungry, or clothe them, or comfort them, etc. then you will be thrown into the everlasting lake of fire created for satan and his angels.

Hopping around like a crazed ape waving a baptismal certificate doesn’t get you a pass in life. But it’s too easy and too dear to the hearts of the arrogant and the lazy. And that has been the real attraction of the Protestant Reformation and the Devil-led splitting of the Church that has gone on since then.

You go ahead and wave your hall pass when you stand in front of the Lamb of God. It’d be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.


208 posted on 04/20/2007 11:54:04 AM PDT by MarkBsnr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

It’s a good thing those liberal German Protestants discovered how primitive and exclusively allegorical the Bible is. What would Catholics have done without them?


Keep about the business of bringing the Word of Christ to the world. You know, what Jesus charged us to do.


209 posted on 04/20/2007 12:00:07 PM PDT by MarkBsnr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke; magisterium

Why don’t you ask magesterium if the quote is in he/she/it’s book? Perhaps you could get off your ass and go to the library? That’s where I went ot verify the stuff.


210 posted on 04/20/2007 12:02:08 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (John 19:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
Three things:

1) I'm working for a living and posting as able. Going to the Library to track down your inanities isn't about to happen.

2) Rather than being snippy with me why don't you try answering Magesterium? I thought he gave you a very nice reply.

3) Your chip is showing.

211 posted on 04/20/2007 12:10:16 PM PDT by pgyanke (RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES ANYWAY... WHY WAIT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Thank you for finally concedng my point. Now that you have admitted that I, Chris a.k.a kerryusama04, is right and you and the rest of your merry band of Catholics are wrong. Now that it has been established in your mind that the Church swapped to Sabbath for Sunday, it is not incumbent upon me to do aything but to say:

I told you so.

Now, tell me, if Church is not bound by the 10 Commandments, how does the Church get off using scripture as its source of supposed "authority". How can a church say that one scripture gives it power to bind and loose, while blatantly breaking God's Commandments and teaching others to do so? We have now arrived at the foundation of my original post. Why would a Catholic read the Bible at all if the Catholic Church can pick and choose which parts it wishes to adhere to?

212 posted on 04/20/2007 12:15:36 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (John 19:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

I think this has been addressed on numerous previous threads, but I’ll encapsulate the Catholic position on this again for you.

Catholics do not believe in “once saved, always saved” models. We believe that it is certainly possible to lose one’s salvation right up to the moment of death. This only makes sense, since life itself is a trial. Indeed, we believe that the fundamentally unjust and/or sinful actions that good Christians are often subjected to demonstrate that fact, and that the temptations - to which we all are subject - to give in to, or compromise with, those injustices and sins are best explained by the fact that we are here, in large measure, to overcome such obstacles for - ultimately - the glory of God. So, from our POV, it is much easier to explain the trials and hardships Christians must endure for decades after embracing Christ in this fashion than it is to say that a 20-year-old (for instance) “gets saved” and then has to endure decades of hardship and injustice anyway. We say: “To what purpose?” Not only does his inevitable subsequent sin seem to run counter to his predetermined salvation, but we wonder why his salvation isn’t immediately followed by entry into Heaven, since there is no real purpose to further earthly struggles.

Alright, then, so what is the Catholic take on salvation? Well, while we don’t believe in “absolute assurance” of salvation, we do believe in “moral assurance.” For sake of illustration, I’ll use myself as an example. At the moment, I believe that I am in a state of grace, having recently been to confession and having no subsequent mortal sins to account for (to the best of my knowledge). If I were to die right now, or at least without having committed any further mortal sins, I am pretty sure that I will spend my eternity in Heaven. HOWEVER! I am 49-years-old, in reasonably good health. I could easily live another 20, 30, maybe 40 years. While I can pray for strength and grace to overcome the trials that await me, I have no absolute certainty that I will not succumb to at least some of them. From an everday observation-level, my committing future sins seems pretty inevitable. And so it is with everyone in the normal sphere of things. Saint Paul was right about that in Romans 3:23!

The point to trials is to overcome them and grow in holiness and Christian witness in the process. We grope and stumble our way through life, gradually overcoming our sinful inclinations (primarily) through the graces imparted to us through the Sacraments, particularly Confession and the Eucharist. But we are not robots or automatons; we can resist those graces if we insist on such foolhardiness, and persist in our sins. If those sins are “mortal” (1John 5:16-17 makes such a distinction) then Heaven will not be our reward if we die in such a state. The choice is ours to cooperate with God’s grace or not.

Ultimately, we believe, this common-sense observation of the practical ramifications of the world God set us in better answers our purpose for being here than declaring that people can be once and always saved even in the midst of ongoing sin and pointless earthly trials. We believe the ordinary means of forgiveness for sin can be found in John 20:22-23, and that, taking the point of Matthew 18:22 to heart, the forgiveness in John 20 can be sought multiple times, provided we are sorry for our sins.

Given that outlook, shared throughout *all* of the Christian Era by *all* churches (Catholic and Orthodox) that can trace an unbroken connection to the Apostles, then, no, we don’t believe we can definitively state where we’ll end up if we plan on living very long. And we believe with equal vigor that you can’t, either


213 posted on 04/20/2007 12:18:44 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Either get YOUR facts straight or continue on your path to embarassing yourself. Why am I going to do one iota of reference work to prove something that has been well established just to satiate your sensibilities. The mature thing for you to do would be to shut up until you do YOUR OWN research.


214 posted on 04/20/2007 12:21:19 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (John 19:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
This is why I didn't take your bait. Magisterium answered you very clearly and the only way you could respond so snidely is to have completely ignored what he (and others on this thread) have endeavored to teach you. You are a petulent child.

Once again I ask you: Why do you deny to the Church today the same authority it rightly exercised in denying circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem? Circumcision and Sabbath observance are both signs of the old covenant.

215 posted on 04/20/2007 12:25:05 PM PDT by pgyanke (RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES ANYWAY... WHY WAIT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

I won and I am done. All you can do is try to take me on tangets where you think I am doctrinally weak. Since you have clearly demonstrated that you aren’t going to believe anything I say, regardless of how well researched the point, what point could there be in answering your posts? You have staked out a position that Jesus Himself could not shake you from, what difference am I going to make?


216 posted on 04/20/2007 12:33:44 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (John 19:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

Speaking of embarassment... when are you going to address the issues instead of posting obscure quotes from dubious sources?


217 posted on 04/20/2007 12:35:37 PM PDT by pgyanke (RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES ANYWAY... WHY WAIT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke; kerryusama04

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.


218 posted on 04/20/2007 12:38:12 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04
I won...

And they say self-esteem has to be earned...

Since you have clearly demonstrated that you aren’t going to believe anything I say...

I've been trying to engage you in an actual conversation. You have been answered numerous times on this thread... and you have ignored the answers. Sorry, FRiend, it is you who are staked on a position that will accept no input.

God bless you.

219 posted on 04/20/2007 12:40:28 PM PDT by pgyanke (RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES ANYWAY... WHY WAIT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Trying very hard to keep it out of the personal.


220 posted on 04/20/2007 12:43:09 PM PDT by pgyanke (RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES ANYWAY... WHY WAIT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

You would do well to actually read my response to you first, before you smugly claim my concession. There is little evidence that you did this.

Tell me, by what precedent, and by what authority, did the Apostles act as they did in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem? They had no precedent whatsoever, as they were directly running counter to the Jewish law in their pronouncements. The authority came from God, as they prayed for it and were responsible for exercising it as the power was granted to them by Christ.

And so it is with this issue of the Sabbath. Clearly, they were changing the day of worship in common to Sunday, in spite of the Jewish precedent. Nevertheless, they had the authority to do so (see Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18). The instance where this decision occured is not recorded in Scripture, or do you actually suppose that *every* decision of the Apostles for the 70 years of their existence on earth (to the death of St. John) is recorded from Acts to Revelation? Nevertheless, Acts 20:7, at least, makes it clear that St. Paul had no objection to worship on Sunday, and there is ample evidence that, by the early second Century, it had become a universal practice.

Your position seems to be that if something is not specifically recorded in the New Testament, then is didn’t happen. That is a remarkably odd position to take: that *all* of the history, teaching and development of the Church in the Apostolic Era (AD33 to AD 100) was fully documented between Acts 1:1 and Revelation 22:21, which take up a scant 127 pages in my RSV-CE Bible!

My mileage most definitely varies with that, and I and my fellow Catholics understand how the Tradition and magisterial teaching of the Church fill-in the gaps. You complain that there is no direct order from God to change worship days, and, because you can cite no real authority other than yourself to interpret Scripture, you cannot even see how Acts 20:7 and other passages point to decisions made by the Church that were themselves not recorded in the New Testament, but flew under the radar of Scriptural testimony. To take your logic to extremes, one could suppose that the Apostle John never died, since the fact of his death is not recorded in Scripture. I’ll leave it to you to see the flaws inherent in that argument, and extrapolate the lessons adhering to that onto your favorite topic: Sunday worship vs. sabbath worship.


221 posted on 04/20/2007 12:54:54 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
This notion of saving one’s soul before death would be amusing on a juvenile level, worthy of National Lampoon type snickers, if it wasn’t so deadly serious and imperilling of your immortal soul.

Out of over 30,000 verses, you guys have picked a handful to base your relgion on and made up the rest (that you call tradition)...

Rev 3:21 To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome and am set down with my Father in his throne.

1Jo 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

1Jo 2:14 I write unto you, babes, because you have known the Father. I write unto you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you have overcome the wicked one.

1Jo 5:13 These things I write to you that you may know that you have eternal life: you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

Your argument is not with me...It's with God...He wrote these things...

Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Sure, there will be a judgement of the sheep and goats...And there are scores of scriptures which show that that verse does not apply to Christians...

Catholics make the claim that 'all' the bible applies to Christians....Who told you that??? Did your church tell you that??? You didn't get it from the bible...

I have asked many here within the reference of these passages how they think that they’ll fare when faced with placement with either the sheep or the goats.

Apparently you haven't asked me because I have no problem answering that question, with scripture...

Mat 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. Mat 25:32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

The answer is; this is not a judgement for Christians...We have already overcome...We as Christians will be there with Jesus Christ and WE will be judging these people along with Jesus Christ...

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

This judgement is for people that have rejected Jesus...I won't be there getting judged...

1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

I'd suggest you put down the catechism and pick up a bible...You'll be amazed at what you find in there...Not the least, your salvation...

222 posted on 04/20/2007 12:55:27 PM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

Comment #223 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo
There are four senses of Scripture: literal, allegorical, anagogical, and moral.

Anagogical...Ahhh...One of them 10 dollar words...

The scriptures are not anagogical to those filled with, and led by the Holy Spirit...

The 'real' senses to the scripture are historical, spiritual (practical) and prophetic...

224 posted on 04/20/2007 1:08:00 PM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

Comment #225 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo

This is a great post. It is a very profitable way of reading and studying the Bible and one that I am familiar with. Beginning back in 1961, I was taught to read and study the Bible this way. Over those years I have also benefitted by tapes made by Scripture scholars. Also, the use of good Biblical commentaries is a big help.

I think that this approach—the four senses of Scripture—helps a person to become very familiar with Scripture passages because in this form of study, it is easier to internalize them.

Earlier on this thread, a post to me commented that I showed evidence of a “reverse snobbery”. It just happens that for me, to learn and grow Scripturally, using the senses of God’s holy word, is much more attainable and within my reach than knowing a lot about ancient literature, history, philosophy and world religions in order to understand Sacred Scripture.

As for the “moral sense” of the four senses; I find that is when lectio divina is very helpful (what does this passage say to me?).

Again—thanks for your simple and clear explanation.


226 posted on 04/20/2007 2:56:36 PM PDT by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
It’s a good thing those liberal German Protestants discovered how primitive and exclusively allegorical the Bible is. What would Catholics have done without them?

Keep about the business of bringing the Word of Christ to the world. You know, what Jesus charged us to do.

My advice is to drop the nineteenth century German liberal Protestant higher criticism, unless you want to be a church of only high-@$$ed, mis"educated" intellectuals.

No wonder the Hispanics are becoming Pentecostals.

227 posted on 04/20/2007 3:22:14 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Please pray for the refu'ah shelemah of Yehudah Ben Rivqah, father of Binyamin Jolkovsky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

Comment #228 Removed by Moderator

To: Salvation
[ Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively? ]

Both.. as you do with any book with metaphors in it..

Taking it as one or the other misses the point of the whole book..
Knowing which is metaphor and which is literal is not always easy.. sometimes very easy..

229 posted on 04/20/2007 3:27:54 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo; wideawake
No one in the world has ever, does now, or will ever, interpret the every single word of the Bible as being of the same sense as "the fire is hot."

There are four senses of Scripture: literal, allegorical, anagogical, and moral.

Actually, the four senses are peshat, derash, remez (my personal favorite), and sod. When did I ever deny the multiple senses of scripture? I have no memory of ever doing this. What I have said is that the Torah contains real, literal history, including all those things out side our contemporary experience and which violate the contemporary theories of science. Believing the stories actually happened, exactly as written, in no way whatsoever means that there are not multiple messages in the Torah.

Just as many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox confuse Biblical inerrancy with sola scriptura (when they are two different things), so an insistence on the literal historical accuracy of the Biblical text in no way whatsoever limits Biblical truth to only the literal surface sense, though this is another favorite arguments/red herrings of anti-literalists.

230 posted on 04/20/2007 3:28:36 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Please pray for the refu'ah shelemah of Yehudah Ben Rivqah, father of Binyamin Jolkovsky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

**I won...**

And they say self-esteem has to be earned...

Since you have clearly demonstrated that you aren’t going to believe anything I say...

I’ve been trying to engage you in an actual conversation. You have been answered numerous times on this thread... and you have ignored the answers. Sorry, FRiend, it is you who are staked on a position that will accept no input.

God bless you.

Good job on answering him. It’s really not worth it — he is a one-issue person == Seventh Day Adventist.


231 posted on 04/20/2007 3:30:19 PM PDT by Salvation (" With God all things are possible. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

Comment #232 Removed by Moderator

To: pgyanke; kerryusama04
Which is more likely: That Christ rose on the Third Day after His Crucifixion as He said He would...

You are absolutely correct. He was three days and three nights in the Heart of the Earth. He had even told us this would be his only sign [Matthew 12:40]. Scripture indeed confirms it [Mark 9:31] "He shall rise the third day!" This must be at least 48 hours but no more than 72. [Matthew 27:63] "After three days I will rise again!" This must be at least 72 hours. [John 2:19-21] "In three days I will raise it up!" Again, this must be at least 48 hours but not one second more than 72. [Mark 8:31] "After three days, rise again!" This also must be at least 72 hours..... so as He himself said. "My "ONLY" sign to a wicked generation.... "Three days and Three nights"....72 hours! [Matthew 12:40]

That He was removed from the Cross on the eve of the Sabbath (setting of the sun on the day before Saturday) as recorded and the women came to prepare His Body after the Sabbath (rising of the sun on Sunday) as recorded and found the tomb empty.

So I would take it you are denying the words of scripture in the fact that there were two Sabbaths crucifixion week....with a non Sabbath day in between for the purchase of the spices? [John 19:31][Mark 16:1][Luke 23:56]

The only way the women could rest the Sabbath (Thursday) [Mark 16:1], purchase and prepare spices (Friday)[Luke 23:56] and rest again for the Saturday Sabbath would be a three full day entombment(72 hours). This unfortunately does not allow for the mythological 36 hour entombment of the Roman Catholic Tradition.

I'm sorry. Your post is "exhibit #1" in why Christ gave us His Church to help us understand His Word.

And my post shows the #1 reason why your Church should be exposed for pulling the wool over the eyes of mankind for 1700 years.... offering nothing but false doctrine and the traditions of fallible men.

You should consider yourself very fortunate that you have now been exposed to the truth and can begin your investigation into other silly traditions of your false organization!

233 posted on 04/20/2007 4:08:34 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo; All
Dear Sandy:

Please allow me to publicly apologize for the tone of my last post to you. I continue to be grateful to you for your prayers and encouragement during the recent sad event in my household. Please forgive my most ungracious language after your kindness.

This is no excuse, but please try to understand how long and how deeply I have been defending Biblical inerrancy and how this issue eventually drove me out of the Catholic Church. I cannot help but be frutrated and angry when the Church which can believe in so many miracles has turned against the literal truth of the Bible when there is absolutely no reason to do this.

Again, I ask your forgiveness and, though there is no excuse for my rough words to you, a certain degree of your understanding as well.

Have a wonderful weekend.

234 posted on 04/20/2007 5:00:23 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Please pray for the refu'ah shelemah of Yehudah Ben Rivqah, father of Binyamin Jolkovsky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

Comment #235 Removed by Moderator

To: Iscool

Actually, we have the whole Bible; unadulterated since we put it together. We don’t have an adulterated Scripture, with nips and tucks here and there to eliminate the things that Martin Luther didn’t like.

By definition, you have a partial faith, since you only have a partial Bible. And it is astounding beyond belief to read the words of those here and elsewhere who claim infallibility in their own personal made-up by gosh doctrine, which differs substantially from all those others who also claim infallibility but the one source who can actually claim doctrinal infallibility, you all reject.

To claim that the Judgement doesn’t apply to you seems merely to be a rationalization whereby one can skip past the requirements of eternal life with God. And then to say that the entire Word of God doesn’t apply to Christians appears ludicrous.

Well, go ahead and wave your hall pass around. You don’t get judged? My Bible, and the One Holy and Apostolic Church of Christ say that you do.

Don’t know what Holy Scripture you live by, but it is fascinating to see unrelated passages strung together and even more fascinating to see what you consider proof or conclusive evidence. Methinks that you’re reading whatever portions of the Bible that you do read in order to find loopholes. Didn’t that Pharisees do that with Scripture as well?

By rejecting His Church, I’d say that you were rejecting Him. So, if you don’t belong to the Church of Christ, where do you belong? The Church of Iscool!!! Has a certain ring about it, doesn’t it? Maybe not a ring - more like a millstone.

When the Church was splintered through the devices of satan by folks like Zwingli and Luther, and the whole idea of personal interpretation arose in order to help try to diminish the influence of the Church of Christ here on Earth, this is exactly what the devil’s intent was.

It appeals to the arrogant and the proud - to imagine that each individual would have the same or even greater power than the Church to create and alter one’s own personal doctrine. How does your personal beliefs differ from, say, Benny Hinn, or Jimmy Swaggart, or Ted Haggard? In some ways, little, in some ways substantal.

But the fact there are substantial differences lead to the conclusion that they’re all wrong. The can only be one right. The only entity that Jesus left on earth is His Church. The Bible is a byproduct of that Church. That entity is the only one authorized to interpret Scripture.

Else we’ll have millions of different interpretations. And all of them wrong to one degree or another.


236 posted on 04/25/2007 7:43:23 AM PDT by MarkBsnr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson