How to Read the Bible as a Catholic [How? Don't take indv. verses as "literally true", says Pope]

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Ok; enough jabbering over a thread titled: How to Read the Bible as a Catholic

It's time to highjack it into...

How to Read the Bible as a MORMON!

First; some ground work - found in the MORMON Articles of FAITH:

#3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

and...

#8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

All right you two; kiss and make up; for none of us will ever be a SAINT Paul!

Good enough for me. I may disagree with you guys, but I don't doubt that you are Christian and my brothers/sisters in Christ.

I hope you feel the same way

I hope you feel the same way

I'm sure we do!

I am convinced that the fellow in the pew in front of me does not 'believe' like I do; but he's still my Brother; for he DOES 'believe' in the same CHRIST as me.

That said, the CHRIST of the MORMONs is NOT the same 'christ' even as they protest it is.

Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Acts 17:18-19
18. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
19. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?

Acts 18:11
So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

Romans 15:4
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Romans 16:17
I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Corinthians 11:2
2. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

Ephesians 4:14-15
14. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.
15. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

1 Timothy 1:3-4
3. As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer
4. nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.

1 Timothy 1:7
They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

1 Timothy 2:7
And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle--I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

1 Timothy 4:1-2
1. The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

1 Timothy 4:6
If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

1 Timothy 4:11
Command and teach these things.

1 Timothy 6:3-5
3. If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,
4. he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions
5. and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

2 Timothy 1:13
What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:15-17
15. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
16. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.
17. Their teaching will spread like gangrene.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17. so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 4:3-4
3. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
4. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Titus 1:11
They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach--and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

Titus 2:1
You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

Titus 2:15
These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

Hebrews 13:9
Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings.

2 Peter 2:1-3
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

2 John 1:10
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.

I hope you feel the same way

Purty much so, I'd say.

The differences that I see between Catholics and Protestants is that we Protestants feel that we can in NO way, 'help JESUS out' with our Salvation, and it looks to us as that is what Catholicism is doing.

We ‘gentile’ non-mormons feel that we can in NO way, ‘help JESUS out’ with our Salvation, and it looks to us as that is what MORMONism teachs; BIG time!

If one believes in a FALSE christ;
then the reward is a FALSE salvation.

of course, Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross is what gives us our salvation --> we cannot save ourselves.

How is Jesus literally the Water of life (John 4:14) -- and how would a "literal" rendering of this from a RC perspective be distinct from a Protestant one?

I never said it was.

And I guess your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpreting certain Scripture passings suddenly becomes "less literal" in interpreting passages like Matt. 23:9?

I have not emphasized literalness by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another. Such a thing has nothing to do with anything. Are you even reading these posts? And, RC is a brand of cola, and so is entirely unrelated to the discussion.

And I suppose your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpretation might be a bit "less" literal than the singularity of Hebrews 1?

See above. I have never argued about Catholic literalness, and Royal Crown Cola is not germane.

and confess that even after you followed up, I still don't get the point you were trying to make here.

Yes, that is abundantly clear. Let me help you out. It is very simple. I have made two points. Only two.

Catholics don't view the pope as "the final arbiter of Biblical truth" as you stated. You say it, but it isn't true.
The pope's comments as quoted in this article are not controversial but merely reflect basic reading techniques. People want to make them controversial because they have an axe to grind against the Holy Father, but all that doesn't make the claims true. The comments about literal truth in individual biblical statements are entirely mundane and reflect reading techniques used by any responsible person, regardless of sectarian affiliation.

You have ignored these issues in order to post false accusations that I have "condemned" others. You have debated things I never said, and focused entirely on your assumptions about Catholics rather than what has been posted. I have never argued that Catholics are more literal, but yet you have decided now that this is what is in play. Its laughable. How can somebody who imagines words like "spiritualize," , "symbolize" and "real" in simple English sentences where they never appear, and then sees condemnation where it isn't even remotely hinted at, claim to have any ability to interpret particular verses of scripture as you are trying to do? You simply lack credibility in this.

The differences that I see between Catholics and Protestants is that we Protestants feel that we can in NO way, 'help JESUS out' with our Salvation, and it looks to us as that is what Catholicism is doing.

I think the real key in this is "and it looks to us." Believe me when I tell you that almost without fail what I run into around here is argumentation not about what Catholics believe, but what people think Catholics believe. No, actually it is what they know Catholics believe. You really cannot disabuse people of these many incorrect assumptions they have about the Church. You can be absolutely crystal clear about something and just directly point out what is true, and people will manage to see past that and argue just what they have been from the start. If I say I like blue they will reply that it is wrong for me to like red. And yet they would interpret scripture.

You have ignored these issues in order to post false accusations that I have "condemned" others. You have debated things I never said,

What do you call post #162, then?

Cothrige, #162: ...the initial editing on the posting of the article was, I think, perhaps intentionally deceptive. But, when people want to believe something badly enough they will grab anything they can and twist whatever comes along to their own ends.

How do you know this? How are you able to glean the intentional inward motives of strangers you don't know? Doesn't Scripture say that only God knows the inward heart -- that man looks @ only what's going on on the outside? (1 Samuel 16:7)

Here you condemned Alex Murphy for being "intentionally deceptive" -- and then you act all offended when somebody points out that this spirit of condemnation is found on your keyboard breath...and then you proceed to repeatedly accuse me for pointing out this breath on you -- that I'm being "false."

Tell us, Cothrige, how are you able to discover inward motivations of strangers? Perhaps you'd like to apologize to Alex Murphy now?

To quote what do you told SkyPilot in #246: "You simply cannot have it both ways, and suggesting otherwise is just making egregious assumptions based on personal bias and prejudice."

So if SkyPilot can't have it "both ways" -- why are you able to have it both ways? If you accuse SkyPilot of "making egregious assumptions based on personal bias and prejudice" what egregious assumptions about Alex Murphy did you make in post #162? Were they based upon "personal bias" toward Alex Murphy based upon previous posts by Alex Murphy? Or what?

Certainly to claim you know the inward motivations of a poster is a rather large assumption, is it not? And to claim they are intentionally being deceptive is egregious, is it not?

You have debated things I never said, and focused entirely on your assumptions about Catholics rather than what has been posted. I have never argued that Catholics are more literal, but yet you have decided now that this is what is in play. Its laughable. How can somebody who imagines words like "spiritualize," , "symbolize" and "real" in simple English sentences where they never appear...

Either you are simply a very slippery fellow, or you weren't following what you said in post #272 -- and why I introduced the word "real" in post #279 (my response).

Here's what you said in 272 -- you were covering All of John 6: Cothrige, #272 If a pope comes out tomorrow and says that John 6 doesn't really reflect a teaching on the Eucharist no Catholic would accept it. It would be one man's opinion, and a bad one.

In case you want to look at John 6:55, the word "real" is there (twice). It's not imagined as you now claim. [So not only did I bring a verse from John 6 into play after you mentioned John 6, I was also introducing this Biblical word as a contrast to how Catholics like to emphasize John 6 as the "literal" body and blood of Christ...the word "literal" isn't ever mentioned in John 6...the word "real" is...]

I have not emphasized literalness by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another. .. I have never argued about Catholic literalness...I have never argued that Catholics are more literal, but yet you have decided now that this is what is in play. (your post #310)

Cothrige, post #102: ...don't think inspiration was in question, but rather LITERAL truth. (1)
It seems to me that it is entirely possible for certain discrete statements in the Bible to not be "literally true" (2)
and yet for the Bible to still be inspired and true...Personally, I consider the entire Bible inspired, but I don't know if that inspiration means that every number in every instance is identical exactly to the LITERAL truth. (3)
I can tell you that it would be strange indeed if reality always happened in neat rounded numbers. That doesn't reflect MY EXPERIENCE of LITERAL truth. (4)

Not emphasized "literalness" by anybody? (Yeah, right...you're entirely too slippery)

Oh, and you didn't stop there in deciding that the subject of "literalness" was "in play" for thee, but not for me:

Cothrige, #273: Every reasonable Christian knows that one has to consider any single statement from Scripture within the whole context in order to know whether it is meant to be taken as LITERALLY true on its own, (5)
or rather as contributing to a point being made through a greater segment of text. For instance, is it "LITERALLY true" when Christ said "This is my body" over bread? (6)
We say yes, given the context of the entire Scriptures and their witness to the Eucharistic faith of the Church. We also say yes given the historic witness of the Church throughout history. However, and very ironically, most of the people shouting that Catholics deny the Bible in believing that not every sentence of the Bible must be "LITERALLY true," (7)
would say this single sentence is actually not LITERALLY true. (8)
What the Holy Father is talking about here is actually what 99% of Christians do every time they read the Bible. Some want to make things controversial, but nothing said here actually is.

Nice to know that after you mentioned "literal" and its similar words eight times in two posts that you...
...(1) now claim you "have not emphasized liternalness"
...and (2) accuse me of suddenly "decided now that this is what is in play."

Perhaps if you had simply recalled what you typed in two posts, the subject of "literalness" wouldn't have popped up to surprise you & bite you in the nose.

You then added Its laughable.

The above really is.

What do you call post #162, then?

A dodge on your part? Otherwise, your claim would have to be that, in post #162, I 'condemn Protestants for not reading John 6 as "real."' That was, after all, what you said. Not that I condemned Alex Murphy for editing the initial post, but for a particular attitude about John 6. And, even if I had accused Alex Murphy of something, or even condemned him, would that mean that I 'condemn[ed] Protestants for not reading John 6 as "real"'? Hardly. You can't demonstrate either claim.

One very juicy irony in this is that this entire post only supports my statements regarding your persistent refusal to address the actual content of the comments and article, which was the reason for my usage of your accusation as an example in the first place. You grab onto imagined intents or actions, imply novel meanings not inherent in the text, or simply assume wildly about what a person simply must believe, and then argue all of those things. You are tilting at windmills in your own mind. Please do try to actually read the posts and then consider well whether you can contribute something useful before commenting.

You grab onto imagined intents...

Not imagined. YOU are the one who used the word "intentionally" to describe Alex Murphy's edits of this article as "deceptive." How do you know his intents?

A dodge on your part?

So you dodge my questions, eh? Why won't you answer them?

Here, I'll repeat them:

Cothrige, #162: ...the initial editing on the posting of the article was, I think, perhaps intentionally deceptive. But, when people want to believe something badly enough they will grab anything they can and twist whatever comes along to their own ends.

How do you know this? How are you able to glean the intentional inward motives of strangers you don't know? Doesn't Scripture say that only God knows the inward heart -- that man looks @ only what's going on on the outside? (1 Samuel 16:7)

Here you condemned Alex Murphy for being "intentionally deceptive" -- and then you act all offended when somebody points out that this spirit of condemnation is found on your keyboard breath...and then you proceed to repeatedly accuse me for pointing out this breath on you -- that I'm being "false."

Tell us, Cothrige, how are you able to discover inward motivations of strangers? Perhaps you'd like to apologize to Alex Murphy now?

Not that I condemned Alex Murphy for editing the initial post, but for a particular attitude about John 6. And, even if I had accused Alex Murphy of something, or even condemned him...

Can't make up your mind if you condemned Alex Murphy, eh? Or what you condemned him for, eh? (Let us know when one side of your brain communicates with the other & comes to a decision)

I think the real key in this is "and it looks to us."

Yup; I took a bit of thought as how I was going to type that.

We are, I think, very much like the blind men inspecting the elephant.

NOBODY wants to talk about Acts 15!

I was going to reply in length but decided against it. You say one thing here which I find particularly disturbing, and I feel no need to discuss anything beyond this with you as you offer no value to any conversation. I am sorry to say that, but it is so. Here I quote you, after your long diatribe suggesting I am opposed to discussions of literalness on a thread about literalness (unbelievable!):

Nice to know that after you mentioned "literal" and its similar words eight times in two posts that you... ...(1) now claim you "have not emphasized liternalness" ...and (2) accuse me of suddenly "decided now that this is what is in play."

Look at point 1. You quote me as having claimed that I "have not emphasized literalness." Full stop. Close quote. Is that an honest quote? Did I say this, with the implications you have given it throughout that I have argued against discussions regarding literalness? Let us look at the actual full quote, and its context:

YOU:And I guess your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpreting certain Scripture passings suddenly becomes "less literal" in interpreting passages like Matt. 23:9?
ME:I have not emphasized literalness by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another.

I have not emphasized the literalness "by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another." And what was I replying to? Your statement that I emphasized so-called "RC literalness." My comment never suggested that literalness was not the issue, but rather that arguments about which church is more or less literal, and the relative value of those opinions, were never in my comments. I never brought such things up but you argued against my imagined view of it anyway. You imply, and then twist the implication, and now even quote segments of sentences to try to prove what isn't so. I don't trust your purpose or intent, and can see nothing constructive in continuing with you.

Have a nice day.

Yup; I took a bit of thought as how I was going to type that.

I appreciate the time too, and I think your comment was a commendable and useful one. We see one another and what we do, and are forced to consider the actions from within our own context. A very difficult thing. But, if we are open to considering that our perspective may not be the other person's, then we can at least be reasonable with one another and be reminded that, regardless of the differences, we all say together "Jesus is Lord."