Fundamentalists and Catholics Whose Bible is it, anyway?

http://www.christlife.org/library/articles/C_understand2.html ^ | Peter Kreeft

[NYer]

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. He is a regular contributor to several Christian publications, is in wide demand as a speaker at conferences, and is the author of over 40 books including

[NYer]

For your consideratin and discussion.

[ArrogantBustard]

Almost any discussion on this (Religion) forum will demonstrate his point.

[drstevej]

The presentation of fundamentalist's view literal interpretation is pure straw men. Fundamentalists believe in normal interpretation. Passages where the author intended a figure of speech are not to be forced to be literal. Passages intended to by the author as literal statements should not be made figurative.

The "this is My body" passage is an argument over the intent of the Savior in uttering the words. Did He intend them as literal or figurative? It is a legitimate hermeneutical debate.

This article is too shallow and biased to be helpful.

My 2 cents. On to better things. Like why the Roman Church venerates the Holy Prepuce. :-)

[ArrogantBustard]

Like why the Roman Church venerates the Holy Prepuce. :-)

Jesus = God. Perhaps we should instead ask why otherwise well intentioned Protestants see fit to ridicule God?

[drstevej]

The ridicule, as you call it, is directed toward myths and legends which focus attention way from worship of God. True worship requires spirit and truth.

The Holy Prepuce is hardly truth. Veneration of such myths ridicules and trivializes the Triune God.

[drstevej]

The difference have not been accurately drawn. That's why I say it is shallow and unproductive.

[NYer]

The "this is My body" passage is an argument over the intent of the Savior in uttering the words. Did He intend them as literal or figurative? It is a legitimate hermeneutical debate.

Hardly!

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic.

From Catholic Answers.

[drstevej]

post #4 is a start.

[Dr Warmoose]

My 2 cents. On to better things. Like why the Roman Church venerates the Holy Prepuce. :-)

Exactly. I especially want to know who was the pervert who thought it was a great idea to keep and preserve it. Mary? Joseph? the rabbi?

[johnb2004]

These discussions always come down to one fundamental issue. The issue is authority. Who decides what is revealed Truth. Are we each our own god or do we submit ourselves to Christ through the Church He founded? He did found a Church, not a book.

To separate oneself from His Church is to make oneself the infallible interpreter of His word. This of course is folly. Truth can't contrdict Truth.

[ArrogantBustard]

Please remove the snake-handling, poison drinking beam from your 'reformed' eye, before addressing the relic-obsessed mote from the Catholic eye.

Thank you.

[RnMomof7]

Passages where the author intended a figure of speech are not to be forced to be literal. Passages intended to by the author as literal statements should not be made figurativeThis article is too shallow and biased to be helpful.

This is a straw man argument..Don't you know that all "fundamentalists" are back woods hicks?

[RnMomof7]

NY...John 6 is misread and the doctrine of the church is forced into it.., so it is funny that a Catholic would accuse Protestants of reading the bible "literally"

By the way the main teaching of John 6 is election :>)

[RnMomof7]

These discussions always come down to one fundamental issue. The issue is authority. Who decides what is revealed Truth. Are we each our own god or do we submit ourselves to Christ through the Church He founded? He did found a Church, not a book.

We only bow to Jesus , the rock of our salvation .

Catholics are to act like robots when they read the WORD of God. They may only accept the private interpretation of the pope .

[Desdemona]

Since the canon was closed by a bunch of bishops, some of whom ended up being canonized (St. Jerome among them), I thought this question should have long been settled.

[johnb2004]

'John 6 is misread and the doctrine of the church is forced into it.., so it is funny that a Catholic would accuse Protestants of reading the bible "literally"'

Catholics interpret the bible "faithfully". Your interpretation of john 6 is disputed by many protestants who claim to know the "correct" interpretation. This is just one more proof that protestantism is an error.