Posted on 05/26/2018 9:56:13 AM PDT by Salvation
Monsignor Pope Ping to OSV column.
Grok
I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE WRITTEN THIS.
I have been saying all along that context is the key to properly understanding Scripture, yet we see Roman Catholics taking so many verses out of context.
I have had several Roman Catholics ask why context is such a big deal.
I am glad to see the msgr possibly understands the importance of context.
I offer this excerpt from gotquestions.org on the importance of context.
Question: "Why is it important to study the Bible in context? What is wrong with taking verses out of context?"
Answer: It's important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kinds of error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: literal meaning (what it says), historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals. After we account for the literal, historical, and grammatical nature of a passage, we must then focus on the outline and structure of the book, then the chapter, then the paragraph. All of these things refer to "context." To illustrate, it is like looking at Google Maps and zooming in on one house.
More at the link.
https://www.gotquestions.org/context-Bible.html
A correction needs to be made to the question.
Jesus is not telling His disciples He will not go to Jerusalem. He is telling His brothers this.
1After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
3Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
4“For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.”
5For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
John 7:1-5 NASB
In this passage we see Jesus does indeed have brothers. These are not the disciples as evidenced by the passage.
We also see His brothers, not His disciples, were not believing in Him at this point in His ministry.
Salvation, I feel I'll be quoting your statement back to you for years! 😂
I have been but to no effect thus far. But now the msgr has raised the point the RCs might accept it.
Oh, eal,
You do understand, don’t you, that context can be subjective.
That is why your constant attempts at using that term is not convincing.
Context is based on applying information found outside of a particular passage to help understand the passage correctly.
Which contributing information one relies on, however, can be influenced by a person’s pre-existing biases, which is why some people will emphasize certain passages to support their interpretation while others will call those same passages irrelevant.
Either way, each person is using their own intellect to determine context, which means they are both using something extra-biblical to interpret the meaning of bible passages.
For example, when Jesus says 5 times in one conversation that we must eat His flesh and blood, my intellect and experience tells me that that repetition supports the passage being literal. You discount that. You cite other passages to refute this. I discount those.
I take the fact that He let people leave Him and risk eternal damnation rather than explain that He was NOT being literal to also support that interpretation. You discount that.
I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong.
I will explain to you why I believe what I believe, but I don’t assert any authority over you to make you believe it or claim that you have no reason to believe what you believe. I see that you have biblical basis for your beliefs, I just don’t interpret the bible the same way as you do. Fine.
You, however, keep saying that any interpretation other than yours is unjustifiable, and people must believe as you do or we are not saved. That, dear eal, is acting as your own personal magisterium, which I think you think is a bad thing.
You are trying to do exactly what you condemn the Catholic Church for. If it is not OK for them, why is it OK for you?
Love,
O2
.
But when they don’t believe that the scriptures are the word of Yehova, of what value is context?
.
Weren’t we just told on another thread in the very recent past, that context DOESN’T matter?
I have this bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in buying!
A literal statement or not?
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. John 6:35 NASB
Do you still get hungry? thirsty?
I think you need to go back and re-read, or read, the post I made regarding context as it addresses all of your concerns.
You may want to ask yourself these questions:
How many times is believe or a form of believe used in the passage?
How many times does John use believe or a form of believe in his Gospel? [biblegateway.com is a useful search engine and is free for all to use.]
At what point of the passage does the conversation change?
Why?
When does it revert back to the original premise?
What is the reply of Peter?
In John's account of the Last Supper, what term is used to describe the food?
Is food ever used anywhere else in Scripture to mean something other than food?
I look forward to your answers.
“That, dear eal, is acting as your own personal magisterium, which I think you think is a bad thing.”
Must disagree. No where in God’s Word to the church is there a magisterium between the Scriptures and the believer.
On the contrary, believers are commanded to “study to show yourself approved, a workman who rightly handles the Word of truth.”
And of course God commands believers to love Him with “all their mind.”
These commands require no man-made magisterium, and are not optional.
“That, dear eal, is acting as your own personal magisterium, which I think you think is a bad thing.”
Must disagree. No where in God’s Word to the church is there a magisterium between the Scriptures and the believer.
***
Well, we’ve seen many times over how people have ‘interpreted’ Scripture to mean what they want it to say and not what it actually says. See: Pope Frank, liberal so-called theologians, et cetera.
On the other hand, if we all have to agree to put just one entity’s interpretation as foremost and demand that we have to believe THAT in order to be saved, that runs a serious risk of the gospel getting corrupted, and then no one will have the truth.
It’s good that we have Scripture—Prophetic and Apostolic teaching, much of which is directly from the Lord—in the original languages that we can compare our theology to. But as we’ve seen in other threads, even people who believe in the primacy of Scripture can come to loggerheads over points of doctrine.
It’s not an easy problem to deal with.
And what did they have before Scripture was written.
The word of mouth, person to person, spread the Gospel — this is called Holy Tradition.
“It’s good that we have Scripture—Prophetic and Apostolic teaching, much of which is directly from the Lord—in the original languages that we can compare our theology to. But as we’ve seen in other threads, even people who believe in the primacy of Scripture can come to loggerheads over points of doctrine.”
And thankfully, the disagreements among believers are about non-essential issues.
And what did they have before Scripture was written.
The word of mouth, person to person, spread the Gospel — this is called Holy Tradition.
***
Yeah, except for the fact that Romanist ‘Holy Tradition’ contradicts the teaching of the Apostles and Jesus himself.
I think I’ll take the actual teaching of the Apostles and Jesus himself over some nebulous ‘Tradition,’ thank you.
They had Scripture....it's called the Old Testament.
Additionally, Paul's letters had been accorded as Scripture very early in the life of the church. Paul's writings were completed between 49-66 AD. We know from Paul's instructions these were being circulated among the churches.
Acts was written around 61 AD.
Mark ~ 50 AD
Luke ~60 AD
Matthew ~ 60s AD
John ~ 85-90 AD
The Gospel message had spread all the way to Rome by 58 AD and very possibly earlier just after Pentecost.
The word of mouth, person to person, spread the Gospel — this is called Holy Tradition.
However, what is not attested to in the written accounts of the New Testament are many of the key aspects of Rome. Indeed, when these are examined we see they developed much, much later than the first century and are at odds with what is revealed in Scripture. So many of the ECFs Roman Catholicism claims received their instructions from the Apostles are in contradiction with each other they nullify each other and contradict the New Testament.
If Rome was so confident of what the ECFs wrote was passed down from the Apostles, they should have incorporated them in their canon when it was formalized at Trent.
That they didn't is telling.
A Catholic post, now has virtually no replies other than the same four or five anti Catholic trolls, who are now talking to each other since they aren’t getting fed anymore.
Thank you for that overview, very much.
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.