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
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.