-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas? (2)
- Thread starter CaliforniaJosiah
- Start date
Albion
Facilitator
- Dec 8, 2004
- 111,127
- 33,264
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Possibly, but I think that we also know that Jesus just let him go without any further dialog. That's basically the same as what happened with the Jews in John 6.
No, he certainly did not. He allowed Nicodemus to go away uncertain of the meaning.
This appears to be Christ's way--to make his point known but not to belabor it when the listener didn't or couldn't get the real point. Why this was his way, we do not know.
Yes, he "could have." But he did not--not in any of these cases. That is what I was trying to show you.
Upvote
0
The jews and disciples thought that Christ was trying to get them to eat real flesh and blood, they took it literally. Yet was he speaking literally?
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
- Dec 8, 2004
- 111,127
- 33,264
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I've chosen to take him as he most likely meant to be taken, rather than trying to force a meaning out of his words there in order to support any preconceived notion I bring to the reading.
I'd recommend that you take this approach also if you want actually to understand what Christ meant.
Upvote
0
Because they mistakenly thought he WAS speaking literally, of course.
Gee, maybe that's it..
Upvote
0
fhansen
Oldbie
- Sep 3, 2011
- 16,287
- 4,071
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
OK, one more neo-pope at work. Apparently Sola Scriptura adherents often need to more or less guess when He's speaking literally or not, depending on their preference. So, is Jesus really present in the Eucharist? Or not?
Upvote
0
Hes in my heart, this i know. Many people question my faith however. Some think that because i may suffer some illness that i have no faith. Others think that if i dont belong to their denomination that i have wrong faith. At the end of the day however none of these people can live my life for me. I must stand on my own two feet and fight the good fight of faith. Sure its difficult to keep following holiness when others try to crush my joy by either questioning my faith or by reproaching me in some way, perhaps they stick some stumbling block in my path, maybe they laugh at me, call me some name, look down on me, talk behind my back, try to lord over me, or any number of things. Its very hard, and im left by myself with a the battle of faith.
Upvote
0
Rick Otto
The Dude Abides
- Nov 19, 2002
- 34,112
- 7,406
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Ok, more no-sense-of-irony work.
Magesterium guesses get a Holy Spirit pass.
No one wants to admit metaphor when there's high holy ground at stake.
Has the magesterium defined reality?
A millennia of ignorance creates an invincible tradition.
Upvote
0
I have left out the part that _should_ not belong to this thread.
Addressing your question:
Sola Scriptura does place the responsibility of interpreting Scripture on the shoulders of each believer. The believe must then receive Scripture aided by prayer, reason and the Church; not according to his or her personal preference, mind you.
However, as I have posted before, Roman Catholics do need to interpret the Magisterium as well. Or do you think that the meaning and authority of the Church Councils (both pre and post-Reformation) are never debated within the RCC? I do not buy the notion that there are a small elite of True Scottish Catholics or Roman Catholics for that matter who always know perfectly what the Magisterium teaches, because well... if Scripture does contain texts which are hard to understand, is the Magisterium by virtue of the Holy Spirit free of anything that is hard to understand?
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,422
- 11,957
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,422
- 11,957
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Because they mistakenly thought he WAS speaking literally, of course.
Indeed - in John 6 the faithLESS disciples are those that take Christ too literally -- even though in John 6 he says "literal flesh is worthless it is my WORDS that have Spirit and LIfE' --
And in Matt 16 the loyal disciples get hammered for taking the symbol of bread "too literally" when it stands for "teaching".
I think we have all seen this about a dozen times on this thread.
in Christ,
Bob
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,422
- 11,957
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
It is not my "interpretation" it is what Christ said in John 6.
And in John 6 Christ does not say "some day in the future at the last supper you will then need to eat my flesh' as we all know by now.
In John 6 Christ does not say "Some day in the future - but not today - I will become the bread of heaven - the bread that comes down out of heaven - but not now... no by all means not now "
BECAUSE IF they were loyal and really thought they needed to bite Christ then and there - the way he said it - HE NEVER would have made it to the cross.
I think we all see that point as well.
Sorry to have to be stating the obvious - but I think it is in remembering what the obvious part is - that the entire chapter is not rendered self-conflicted.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
