Avoid Intellectual Suicide: Do Not Interpret the Bible Like a Fundamentalist

Vox Nova ^ | May 14,2 010 | Henry Karlson

[Mad Dawg]

LOL

Certainly!

[Natural Law]

"Wow! I don’t see any connection whatsoever!"

Thats because there is none, but when you are as completely wrong as Uri so often is you have to bend and distort the date to fit the model....kind of like theological globull warming.

[Mad Dawg]

The inference seems to be that Christ's body is present at the Mass worldwide, rather than in Heaven, but I have not found definite doctrine.

I find it difficult to understand. This is why I really want a complete Summa with facing page Latin and English.

The Ascended Christ has a "resurrection" body. Paul uses the phrase "spiritual body" which I think is shorthand for "I have no clue; there is something we must call a 'body' which the resurrected have; but it is different from the "natural" body we currently enjoy and endure; you figure it out."

Other thoughts related to the question: The hypostatic union persists in Heaven. It is a man seated at the right hand of the Father, as well as the Son. Men seem to be essentially corporeal. (For: if not, why go to all the trouble of raising the body if we don't need one to be who/what we are.)

The witness of Genesis 2:7, with which Aquinas has no disagreement, is that the "living being" or "living soul" is what you get when God blows His Spirit into a human body.

With Aquinas's Aristotelian thought, I have tried to suggest that human soul : human body :: burning : fire. I'm not sure this is right, but work with me: If there's no burning all you have is combustible materials, not fire. And if there are no combustible materials, you have no burning.

A dead body is not a human, it's just a human body -- a thing that was human, but not anymore. But without a body, do we have a human?

So between now and the general resurrection (except for Mary and IHS) the "souls"in purgatory, hell, and heaven persist by a special activity of God's. At the general resurrection the delights of heaven and the torments of Hell will be exacerbated by the restoration of the fullness of human being, even though the body then will not be a "natural"(strange word) body.

AND, thebody whose substance is "really" in the sacrament is the risen body of our lord. The "sacrum convivivium" is truly "futurae gloriae nobis pignus" (a pledge to us of future glory.)

I do not say this with any great certainty. But this is where my thinking is now.

[MarkBsnr]

The inference seems to be that Christ's body is present at the Mass worldwide, rather than in Heaven, but I have not found definite doctrine.

I find it difficult to understand. This is why I really want a complete Summa with facing page Latin and English.

It would be helpful, but would not our separated friends accuse us of creating new doctrines?

The Ascended Christ has a "resurrection" body. Paul uses the phrase "spiritual body" which I think is shorthand for "I have no clue; there is something we must call a 'body' which the resurrected have; but it is different from the "natural" body we currently enjoy and endure; you figure it out."

Admirably put. You have some interesting thoughts; I have not turned my small attention to that area. Have you shared them with anyone in the Church?

[Iscool]

Once you have got it into your head that your interpretation is “God's word” or “God's teaching” and that science is only “man's word” or “man's teaching” then what recourse do you have to change a dogma that is obviously in error, like the Earth not moving and the Sun being in orbit around it?

Seems to me that the scientists of the day determined that the sun rotated around the earth...

Eventually they revised their theory to line up with Scripture...

[Iscool]

I have checked the Catechism; I may have spoken hastily. The inference seems to be that Christ's body is present at the Mass worldwide, rather than in Heaven, but I have not found definite doctrine.

So Jesus is not sitting at the right hand of the Father...Interesting...So that means that Mary is sitting in that seat next to the Father...Very interesting picture...

[MarkBsnr]

Nope.

The inference (I have not found any definitive statement) is that His Body remained here and is present in the Eucharist, whilst He Ascended and is fully God Almighty without a human body. But I have no definitive statement, as I said.

What is all this about Mary?

[Mad Dawg]

You have some interesting thoughts; ... Have you shared them with anyone in the Church?

I'll assemble my cardinals right away.
[Yells:] Hey! Get the gang in stenography over here! I've feel an encyclical comin'on.

Yeah. The whole soul body thing and the uniqueness of our view as compared to the Platonic/Gnostic view is important.

In just a small way,if one thinks of the (or 'a') body as not essential to being what we are,it's hard to view bodily stuff, like sex as anything better than a pleasurable distraction.

And I went over to FB and put up my analogy (in 2 versions) about soul and body.

I'm pretty confident (though it's been more than 35 years) that I'm right about the Sacrament and the Resurrected Body -- in Aquinas. And my junque about the body in heaven is pretty garden variety.

Is the question, "Whether the risen body of IHS subsists in any mode other than in the Eucharist?" or would you want to put it another way?

[Elsie]

As often...

... as YOU do THIS....

YOU = Jews

THIS = Passover meal

---

Hint: the Jews STILL have this meal every year.

[Iscool]

What is all this about Mary?

Catholics claim that Mary currently sits at the right hand of Jesus in Heaven, Who sits at the right hand of the Father...

But now we learn that your religion infers Jesus' body is NOT sitting at the right hand of the Father...And THAT inference brings up some interesting issues...

Like, is there a seemingly empty chair between Mary and God???

And, when our body loses it's soul, the body drops dead...But yet we have a soul-less, mindless body of Jesus running around on earth to all the Catholic churches???

The Disciple Stephen saw Jesus sitting, then standing in Heaven...When did Jesus' body get up and leave Heaven??? Does it operate by remote control???

And of course the best one is still; where is the command for your religion to get Jesus' body into a piece of bread, and where are the instructions on how to do such???

[allmendream]

Revisionist history, typical of creationism when they encounter facts they are unable to deal with.

The majority of the Christian world, pre Copernicus, believed the Sun was in orbit around the Earth, and they based this not via utilization of the scientific method, but clearly they based it upon Scriptural justification. Their arguments at the time are filled with such scriptural justifications for an immobile and central Earth.

The majority of the Christian world abandoned Geocentrism, not based upon a better understanding of Scripture, but upon a better understanding of and observations of the natural world that INFORMED their interpretation of scripture.

The crux of the matter comes down to this, do you consider physical reality subordinate to your interpretation of scripture; or are you willing to accept in the face of reproducibly demonstrated reality that your assumptions and interpretations as to the meaning of Scripture might be in error.

The majority of the Christian world, post Copernicus, accepted that their assumption and interpretation as to the meaning of Scripture that made them think the Earth was central and immobile were in error. Do you think they were wrong to do so?

[Natural Law]

Christ was simultaneously God and man. No one who calls themselves Christian would deny the divinity of Jesus, but were they to physically examine Him they would find no physical evidence of the divinity. The same is true of the Eucharist. When the bread becomes the body of Christ through the process of transubstantiation non believers will not recognize the presence of the divinity and believers cannot deny it.

[betty boop]

Prophesy is given in symbolism for a reason...and the Lord knew people would be trying to “figure it out”...and thus coming up with their own interpretations...even if they were wrong.

Very interesting observation, DrewsMum! Yes, prophecy is given to us in symbols; also the parables of Jesus.

In both cases, God chose to use symbols rather than "plain" narrative language to communicate His Truth. We can wonder why.

My spiritual leading in this matter FWIW: These truths are so vast and "radical" (because truly universal and eternal, referring to a Kingdom of which no human being had ever had any direct experience before whatsoever) that they cannot be articulated in ordinary denotative speech.

By denotative speech I mean a one-to-one correspondence between a noun and (in most cases) a single "external referrent" in the world of direct human observation and experience. Of such are definitions made.

English is relentlessly denotative in this sense as compared, say, to ancient Greek, German, or French. These languages are based on words that have, more than a simple definition, cultural and historical associations that the speakers of these languages know; i.e., they are not strictly denotative, but also carry, e.g., historical allusions, cultural and moral understandings, and the like.

I understand that translating German literature into English can be a daunting task, due to the non-denotative to denotative conversion involved.

An example of a non-denotative word in this sense is the Greek word logos, which carried multiple meanings — e.g., word, story, truth. There is no single definition. But a Greek immersed in his own cultural heritage and history would know which meaning was called for in the given context.

In modern English, interpreting a text is far, far easier. Words tend to have only one meaning ("definition"). For instance, WRT the word "logos": in modern English, "logos" is the plural of the noun denoting "a graphic mark or emblem commonly used by commercial enterprises."

Obviously, the Holy Bible would need to protect its truths from this sort of "misappropriation," even corruption, of the meaning of words over time. So it employs symbolic language.

The further benefit of symbolic language would be, because it is not strictly denotative, it requires an act of the human mind and spirit for its understanding. Human subjectivity is drawn into play, in an encounter with the Word of God.

In a certain sense, this may be the entire point of the exercise: God seeks relation with His human children, and they are drawn to Him in the measure of the light and grace they have received from Him.

It seems to me this "process" can only be facilitated by the use of symbolic language. Since the emphasis is really on the relationship aspect, one wonders (at least I do) whether "wrong" interpretations are even possible — on my belief that the eternal human soul is a work-in-progress in the hands of an eternally just, loving, and merciful Father, I AM THAT AM....

In that case, I'd be reluctant to be the judge of the alleged "wrongness" of anybody's interpretation of prophecy and Jesus' parables.

Though I wouldn't mind pointing out to any non-Christian engaging in "biblical criticism" (read: atheist) why HIS interpretation is "wrong."

In the end, there is only One Truth — God's Truth. It is the eternal foundation and order of heaven and earth — first, last, and of everything in-between.

To God be the glory!!!

I probably haven't explained these ideas very well, DrewsMum. I struggle to find the language....

Thank you for your kind attention, and oh so very much for your excellent essay/post!

p.s.: This might seem a little off-track; but — In human history, symbolic language has also been used to conceal and protect "divine truths" from those unworthy to receive them.

There's been a recent illustration of this, which I find rather funny. The rock diva Madonna decided to embrace Kaballah, an "esoteric" Jewish speculation of great antiquity and dignity regarding the fundamental roots of divine reality.

Evidently her interest caused great unease and heartburn among well-recognized and esteemed Kaballah scholars, for fear that she might misappropriate the great symbols of Kaballah for her own purposes. Which evidently she quickly did, taking the symbol Shekinah and converting it into something akin to Gaia — the mother goddess.

I am not a student of Kaballah; but somehow I suspect that to regard the symbol Shekinah as the mother goddess probably signifies an attempt to corrupt the symbol, wittingly or unwittingly....

Whatever. Though Madonna may possibly have misread the symbol, and has been promoting her "interpretation" far and wide, the truths of Kaballah are still safe in the symbols for the person who can approach them in the spirit of truth.

[Mad Dawg]

I don't think it's right to speak of the Christian intellectuals' adopting geocentrism just because of Scripture. It LOOKS like the stars are fixed. You need good instruments to see them moving, as they must if Copernicus is right.

Copernicus still didn't "save the appearances" very well. We had to drop "regular circular motion" before we had a system that elegantly accounted for planetary motion. And we had to be able to measure stellar parallax before heliocentrism could really stand.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding, informative essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

In human history, symbolic language has also been used to conceal and protect "divine truths" from those unworthy to receive them.

Indeed. That, Jesus tells us, is the reason He spoke in parables.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. – Matthew 13:14-16

As in the Madonna example, people have certainly misrepresented or misappropriated the words of God. But they cannot destroy them because He preserves them Himself.

The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. – Psalms 12:6-7

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. - Isaiah 55:11

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[Mad Dawg]

So, in your view, when Acts says, “They continued in the Apostle’s teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers,” the phrase “the breaking of bread” does not refer to the Eucharist?

[allmendream]

I didn't claim they didn't have other reasons for it, it is the system that makes the most sense observationally from the surface of the Earth. Yet they defended their position based upon Scripture. To this day Geocentrists claim that all “Bible believing Christians” are by definition Geocentrists, and that by embracing any other system you are putting the “teachings of men” over the “teachings of God”.

And a superior model need not be 100% accurate to be a superior model. Copernicus’ model was far superior in every respect to the Geocentric model.

It was an increased knowledge of physical reality that informed the interpretation of Scripture such that the vast majority of the Christian world no longer interprets Scripture to mean that the Earth is either central or immobile.

So how is adjusting interpretation of Scripture in light of Astronomical scientific knowledge any different philosophically from adjusting interpretation of Scripture in light of Physics or Biology?

Should the Christian world have rejected the Copernican model because it conflicted with what they thought to be “God's teaching”?

[Natural Law]

This has always been a point of humor for me. I remember reading an inverview of Bob Dylan in which an English professor was trying to interpret Dylan's lyrics and was reading many, many things into it from the professor's educational experience. In the interview Dylan just laughed and said he wrote it only because it rhymed. My point is that too often those who attempt to over analyze Scripture are doing so only to build an altar to their own intellect.

I take an Occam's Razor approach to Scripture. Jesus' message was pure and simple and was intended for the poor, the uneducated, the outcast and the disenfranchised. He told us to approach it like a child would. Everything in the Old Testament was in preparation for the two Greatest Commandments and the eight Beatitudes. Everything else in the New Testament was to explain and reinforce this.

[Mad Dawg]

I was just quibbling around the edges.

[allmendream]

I noticed! :)

Creationists always seem to be on the lookout for the next “epicycles within epicycles” that will rescue their apologetic models from the grip of cold hard conflicting data. Intellectual suicide indeed.