My way of interpreting their interpretations is governed by my own cultural traditions, just as yours is. We all have biases of some kind or another because we grow and develop our worldview within the traditions that surround us, though some of us may be fortunate enough to study others. Thank God, his truths found in Holy Scripture transcends cultures, and backgrounds, and biases. The very Holy Spirit of God is what speaks to each heart inclined to hear it and, with his presence, we CAN come to grasp the height, and depth and width of the riches of God revealed to us. It is what sets it apart from all other writings, of any other human endeavors.
Isn’t your interpretation of the meaning of the Bible any less conjectural?
No more and no less than any other believers. What makes their thoughts and musings any more valuable than mine or yours? Is God not able to illuminate his truths to the twenty-first century mind just as easily as he did the first century? Rather than presume everything I was taught growing up about God was completely true, I decided to study it word for word. I put myself through Bible college almost right out of high school - at minimum wage of $1.50 per hour - and I graduated from it with a firm knowledge that it WAS the word of God, that it was true and trustworthy and that I could spend the rest of my life plunging its depths. I don't regret a day I spent there because, now, I not only know what I believe I know why I believe.
There isn’t a single verse in scripture that explicitly says that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said: “This is my body” “This is my blood.”
Only his own words. Like:
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. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:35-40)
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. (John 6:47-48)
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” (John 6:61-65)
When Jesus held up the bread and broke it at the last supper with his disciples, he said it was his body which would be broken for them. The bread did not change into flesh, but remained bread. Jesus used the bread to represent his body. The same with the cup. It represented his blood which would be shed for them, by drinking the cup and eating the bread he gave them, they were signifying their faith in his sacrificial death for them. They received him, believing him, just as he told them in the John 6 section, that whoever receives him has eternal life.
Or 1 Peter 3:21, which pronounces that “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience— through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” NASB
There isn’t exactly a single verse in scripture that explicitly says that baptism is symbolic either.
Yet you gave one yourself. All throughout Scripture, there are many ways that God teaches the same truths to us. As Noah was saved from drowning by the Ark, so Jesus saves us by himself. All he required was faith, believe, trust, receive then he does the rest. There IS a baptism of the Spirit that happens when we receive Jesus as Savior. The rite or ritual of water baptism is purely symbolic just as Peter explained.
It comes down to TRADITION of what verses you choose to stitch together to create your catechetical position.
Take a look at the Catechism sometime, if you want to really see patchwork scripture to try to prove a position.
Then you choose to ignore or dismiss verses like 2 Thessalonians 2:14 and 3:6, which challenge your interpretation of the Traditions of Men.
You have no knowledge of what I do or do not believe about Scripture, so please do not presume to tell me what I ignore or dismiss. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (II Tim.3:16-17)
The very same Spirit that illuminated Scripture, or not, to people two thousand years ago, is just as relevant today and just as able to do the same for those who are open to his leading. II Thess. 2:13-15, says "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Why you presume to tell me I ignore or dismiss these verses is beyond me. Why you seem to insist that these verses PROVE your magesterium has carte blanche to define any "tradition" not recorded in Scripture as equal to Holy Scripture is not beyond me, because I know that they have used these verses to state such before and their intent is plainly visible. So if we want to live the "spirit" of God's truths, we must know what they are first. Only then can we begin to grow in the grace of God and be all he desires for us to be.
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.”
This is a favorite verse of protestants. But, it doesn’t mean what you think it means and it certainly is not the Lord’s way of saying what He said earlier in John regarding the true life giving nature of His Body and Blood is symbolic.
What Jesus is saying here is that one cannot enter heaven through works of the flesh. One must have the Spirit of Life within them. He also tells us how we can have the Spirit of Life, HIS VERY SELF, within us,
John 6:56 “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
If what you think this means is true, then why is it that it was FLESH which suffered and died on the cross?
True.Everyone has some sort of baggage wether they know it or not.My world-view was totally atheistic.My entire family,immediate and extended are (AFAIK) still atheist.Religion of any form was looked upon as a sort of leprosy,pretty much still is,again,AFAIK.
When I think upon His name,I'm still sometimes taken aback at what it is I actually believe.The fact that it is so diametrically opposed to my entire upbringing,opposed to practically everything that I hear and see from the world,that even my own flesh is often violently opposed to and yet I believe.
When I contemplate all that I can't help but think it is a slow-motion miracle so to speak.IOW I find it incredible that I believe what I believe.
"Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path."
You have no knowledge of what I do or do not believe about Scripture, so please do not presume to tell me what I ignore or dismiss. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (II Tim.3:16-17)
>> This verse DOES NOT prove Sola Scriptura.
The rite or ritual of water baptism is purely symbolic just as Peter explained.
>>Again, that is your INTERPRETATION of what St. Peter is saying.
The consensus up until Martin Luther was completely different, suggesting that water baptism is a supernatural event not unlike when Jesus used mud and spittle to heal the blind man.
But as you admit “My way of interpreting their interpretations is governed by my own cultural traditions, just as yours is.” Your cultural tradition starts with a presumption of egalitarianism ala America and a knee-jerk anti-Catholicism. Consequently, if Catholics believe A you believe B.
I’ve found similar polemics leveled against Lutherans because they are “too much like the Catholics” instead of a dispassionate look at Lutheran beliefs. I assure you Lutherans hate Catholicism as much as you do.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/luther_no_christian.htm
Take a look at the Catechism sometime, if you want to really see patchwork scripture to try to prove a position.
>>No different than what you do. At least the Catholics and Orthodox readily admit it.
Why you seem to insist that these verses PROVE your magesterium has carte blanche to define any “tradition” not recorded in Scripture as equal to Holy Scripture is not beyond me, because I know that they have used these verses to state such before and their intent is plainly visible. So if we want to live the “spirit” of God’s truths, we must know what they are first.
>>Because the apostles were Jews. Judaism has continually taught there is the Oral Torah and the Written Torah.
Catholic tradition corresponds to the Jewish Oral Torah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah
Protestants cut the cord of Christianity’s organic development out of Judaism. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be understood without understanding pre-rabinnic Judaism. This is especially true of the Ethiopian Church, which largely converted from Judaism to Christianity.
The first Protestants instead reinterpreted the Bible in the light of the Nominalist culture that had begun to grow during the dark times of late medieval Europe when William of Ockham’s worldview had become prevalent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism