How to Interpret the Bible

http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/interpreting-the-bible ^ | May 1, 2011 | Faith Facts

[grumpa]

In 1993 Hank Hanegraaff (“The Bible Answer Man”) wrote a book entitled Christianity in Crisis. In the book he exposed problems within evangelicalism. Many think that in actuality Hanegraaff understated the problems of both doctrine and practice within Christianity, and time has made the issues even more acute.

Forgive us for saying so, but perhaps it is time to be honest with ourselves. American Christianity is a mess. It is separated into divisive sects, giving the world the impression that we don’t know what we are doing. And maybe we don’t. Some serious introspection is in order.

[Westbrook]

> I see no mention of the Sabbath or other commandments.

Been there, done that.
Got the shirt, got the hat.

See how well you can keep this one during a New Hampshire Winter when the temperatures go to minus 20 with winds up to 40 mph.

Ex 35:3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

And be sure to send your menfolk to the Temple in Jerusalem three times per year to stand before the high priest.

Don’t forget, there are three tithes. One for the priests, one for the governance, and one for the poor. One of these was once every three years, so the effective overall tax rate was 23.3%.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The main problem is that Catholics tend to, ah, selectively quote the patristics such as Ignatius, and tend to do so from their own prepared translations that just so happen, coincidentally, to be translated in such a way as to support Catholic doctrine.

Nevertheless, the idea that Ignatius actually believed in transubstantiation is highly unlikely.

Of course, even the Egyptians and Aztecs believed that they were actually eating their gods' bodies.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>
Do you reject Yah'shua's command to do
a Pesach Seder in remembrance of Him?
Using the Third cup (cup of Redemption)
of the Pesach Seder and the Afikoman.

yes

Mazol Tov !

Have a wonderful journey on the wide road of life.

You might want to prayerfully consider
Matthew 7:12-16 in YHvH's WORD.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Chaguito]

Absolutely, since in the context he is talking about honoring the others in the assembly, often referred to as the body of Christ. Koinonia = communion. BTW, no capital letters in the original language to bias interpretation.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Don't worry about length of posts, I've been known to drop a few stemwinders on people here on FR myself!

It's not that I don't know or understand what Catholicism teaches on this subject. It's that I don't agree with it - and the reason is that I see Catholicism engaging in a whole lot of eisegesis on this subject.

Take the lists of verses you gave. These verses, in and of themselves, don't support the "real presence" or transubstantiation. That is an idea that comes from early medieval Catholic doctrine that has to be eisegeted into them. It only becomes "apparent" that they are talking about the "eucharist" after that doctrine has been "read back" into them.

I read them, without the preconception, and see that the Bible tells us to take the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him. Further, in John 6, I take what Jesus says about eating His body and drinking His blood in the context of what is really a fairly extensive line of other portions of Scripture where the idea of eating the Word of God is used - in a figurative sense. I see no reason to suddenly take John 6 in a different sense, just to fulfill a pre-ordained theological mode.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I would agree - and we MUST receive Him and incorporate Him into us by faith. We must make the Word of God a very part of our being, otherwise we are failing at what God desires for us to be and do.

[Cronos]

It only becomes "apparent" that they are talking about the "eucharist" after that doctrine has been "read back" into them.

I'm sorry, that is incorrect

if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

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

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16). Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16) --> you can say that Paul is reading into it, but that's starting things pretty early, right?

[Cronos]

What does Paul say? (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

[Cronos]

This is also not Medieval in origin as we have comments from the Early Christians such as Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

You can refer to the Didache (AD 70) that states

Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs

-- ok, granted that is not explicit, but why would bread not be shared with non-baptised folks? Many Christian groups give their idea of communion to all and sundry, right? The reason for the restriction is that the Early Christians KNEW that the bread was holy.

[Jack of all Trades]

Jesus also said “Come, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men”, but we don’t go around hooking, gutting and skinning people in order to get them to church, do we?

[bkaycee]

Most scholars believe that the impetus for the Roman invasion of the British Isles was for the significant tin deposits.....which were necessary for the tin foil hats for those who believe that the "Roman" church destroyed documents.

Never heard about destroying docs, but Rome sure had no problem creating or using forgeries; see Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis

[Uri’el-2012]

Absolutely, since in the context he is talking about honoring the others in the assembly, often referred to as the body of Christ. Koinonia = communion. BTW, no capital letters in the original language to bias interpretation.

Koinonia

Strong's G2842 - koinōnia

1) fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse

a) the share which one has in anything, participation

b) intercourse, fellowship, intimacy

1) the right hand as a sign and pledge of fellowship (in fulfilling the apostolic office)

c) a gift jointly contributed, a collection, a contribution, as exhibiting an embodiment and proof of fellowship

From κοινωνός (G2844)

1) a partner, associate, comrade, companion

2) a partner, sharer, in anything

a) of the altar in Jerusalem on which the sacrifices are offered

1) sharing in the worship of the Jews

b) partakers of (or with) demons

1) brought into fellowship with them, because they are the authors of heathen worship

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[bkaycee]

Jesus also said “Come, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men”, but we don’t go around hooking, gutting and skinning people in order to get them to church, do we?

True. We should also then consider adding another sacrament of drinking the "Living Water"

John 4:14 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." 15 The woman said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw."

Clearly the woman at the well understood drinking literal water, same as those in John 6 who supposedly understood eating literal flesh and blood. "The flesh profits nothing", should be included in any serious exegesis.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>Many believe that the Roman "church" destroyed many documents which disagreed with it's "theology"

Well, of course they did. They also destroyed the grant given to me personally by Caesar Augustus to all the land in Italy. It it wasn't for the RCC, I could be living it up in my Tuscan resort right now, reading Matthew's gospel in Aramaic.

Curious that the Hebrew documents
prior to the third century are all missing.

Nicea (325CE): when the Roman "church"
was created by Constantine the Pagan Pontiff.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Grunthor]

When Jesus called Peter a rock, did he turn to stone?

[Cronos]

note John 6:35

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

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

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

[Cronos]

What hebrew documents are missing? How do you even know there are documents that were even “missing”? If they are missing, then 1700 years later you come to know of them? Strange...

[Campion]

Where I disagree is the very act of faith - receiving and believing in Jesus Christ - IS what Jesus meant with his words of eating and drinking his flesh and blood. When we receive him we are taking him into our hearts.

Why'd he have to go and muddy the waters by introducing this weird rite involving bread and wine, on the night before he died, no less?

And why, when the Jews walked away from him in John 6, did he not clarify to his apostles that he was only talking about "receiving and believing him"?

And why does Ignatius write that it is best not to even speak of the heretics who deny that the Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood that was crucified and raised for our salvation?

[Uri’el-2012]

Titus and I were discussing the book of Matthew written in Hebrew.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Natural Law]

"Rome sure had no problem creating or using forgeries;"

Nowhere is it suggested that the Church created the forgeries you named, but why let the truth get in the way of your on going smear of the Catholic Church. You also failed to mention that it was the Church that declared these documents to be forgeries. Your "creative" portrayal of the history of those forgeries is as much a forgery as the actual documents.

How much time do you spend each day digging for dirt on the Church and how much time do you spend opposing the evils in today's society like abortion? I've gone through your entire posting history and not found a single post that condemns the practice.

What actual deeds have you done to stop the practice of abortion at the local, state or federal level or do you see doctrinal differences with the Catholic Church as your windmill and the greater evil? I'm not trying to create a straw-man, just to better assess your value system and find common ground.