Divinely Inspired Ambiguity?

[spockrates]

Spockrates, the point Adstar is making is that while the passage in question may leave an open question, by looking at the rest of Scripture, we can come to a fairly confident position as to whether Jesus was speaking symbolically or not. Scripture interprets Scripture.

I think one important thing to remember when reading Scripture is that the point of it really is to guide us to the person of Christ, His life, His death, His resurrection, and His eventual return. Jesus IS the Gospel.

The consequent role of the Holy Spirit is to point us towards Christ. The Holy Spirit provides gifts to people so that they can further the Gospel and edify the Church.

What the Spirit's role is NOT to do is to lay out all of theology on some spreadsheet. The Holy Spirit's role is not to answer ever detailed theological question we have - His role is to simply point us towards Christ. Therefore, it is possible that you will have humble and godly men on both sides of a theological issue. This isn't a failure on the part of the Holy Spirit who is responsible for the inspiration of Scripture. I think if we were more humble in our approach to Scripture and kept our focus where (on who) the Spirit wants us to, then we would probably be a lot better off.

Thanks SPF. My role, which is admittedly a selfish one, is to escape hell. Catholics tell me the Eucharist (the bread they serve at their churches) is a means of escaping hell, so...

* * *​

But regarding wider biblical context, Catholics point me to John, chapter 6, which they say explains the meaning of our Lord's words at the last supper, when he teaches us this:

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
​

And he says similar things in the chapter, which they take quite seriously. But I should add that I'm not a Catholic, only what they tell me makes me wonder.

 

[Hillsage]

Hi Hillsage. What about understanding it right?

Understanding is fine and good. But if I'm eating crackers and drinking grape juice I'd say my understanding has been compromised a whole lot more than not knowing if the 'bread and wine' is 'really' the body of Jesus, or just a 'symbolic' thing which I'm doing for 'remembrance' purposes, and not so 'I'm really saved'....or whatever theology is being bantered about here with either POV.
Hope that helps you 'understand' my POV spockrates.

EDIT: PS I was born/raised Roman Catholic, left at age 19, but then at 22 I actually got born-again/saved.

 

[Hillsage]

See Post #9.


...

I don't see the word communion anywhere in the chapter, only your assumption, which is the context of the chapter. And we're a long ways from the last supper at this point also. Joh 6 is about coming to 'the Lord' in salvation.

See verse 29, 35 of that chapter. Then you'll realize that your spiritual hunger is satisfied in coming to Him and your spiritual thirst is satisfied in believing in Him.

John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

JOH 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

He is telling them how to attain the symbolic 'spiritual reality' which gives life, and contrasting that with the substance of physical bread which perishes.

 

[Adstar]

Thanks Adstar. I believe these words,

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
​

Can be interpreted to mean,

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
​

Or interpreted to mean,

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is [a symbol of] my body.​

Catholics add the emphasis to the word is, and so they say non-Catholics are the ones who are adding words to scripture--in this instance, the words added are, "a symbol of".

* * *​

My thought is this: Words added or not, both add their own understanding of what Christ meant. Someone like me, who doesn't know what understanding is correct, can see how either can be what Christ intended. So I'm unsure. Therefore the words are ambiguous to me. See?

And you are adding your own personal opinion by stating that everyone is guided by their own personal opinion when interpreting scripture.......

If your opinion is correct ( and it is not correct ) then the Holy Spirit is guiding no one, and thus no one is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and thus no one is saved from the eternal lake of fire...

But anyway let each one accept what they shall accept and reject what they reject... God knows His own and in the end everyone will know if they are Gods or not..

 

[pshun2404]

Did God intend the Bible to be unclear?

So it seems to me the New Testament is somewhat a product of scriptural ambiguity. That is, certain significant passages of scripture use imprecise language, which lends itself to differing and even contradictory interpretations. If we accept the premise that the Bible is the word of God and divinely inspired, then does this mean such lack of preciaion and the resulting disagreements about the meaning of key passages is divinely intentional?

One example:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”​

The four words, "this is my body," are cause for a great divide amoung Christians. For instance, Catholics believe Christ to be saying:

"this is my [actual] body"
​

Thus they believe the Eucharist they eat at mass is actually the body of Christ, and a sacrament that contributes to their salvation. On the other hand, some other Christians believe Christ to be saying:

"this is [like] my body"​

Hence they see the bread as merely a symbol and deny the Catholic belief in the sacrament and divide over it.

The thing is, if anything is divinely inspired, these four words are, for they were spoken by God himself! So why not say five words instead of four and stop the future divide before it begins?

Yes an interesting choice of examples. I also wrestled with questions about this passage for a time and after much prayer and consideration of all the arguments for and against, I took the following approach....

Since Jesus Himself had opened the minds of the Apostles to the scriptiures I decided to ask "Well then what did the Apostles teach that these things mean?"

Naturally the first place we look is in their writings and we get some insight in Paul but not much else. So the next step was to go to those who the Apostles themselves had taught and appointed as the first overseers (Bishops) in the churches they had initiated. So I read and explored ALL that could be known in the earliest Church fathers (1st and 2nd century) and then I read the historical recap given in Eusibius (around 300 AD) about those earliest leaders (either taught by the Apostles or their very own students) found in The History of the Church.

I was quite amazed at what I found. I found they all agreed that somehow (with full acceptance and no speculation being necessary) that somehow the body and blood of Christ ARE His body and blood. For me it rings more of a consubstantiation concept then a transubstantiation concept in their writings. They did not think of this as cannibalism nor a magical transformation incited by the word/formula of a Priest...they just took Paul's words literally and discerned His body in the breakiing of the bread and partook "in remembrance" of Him.

So whether it is one or the other modern speculations is really not our concern....when the bread is broken (or in the broken bread) our remembrance is Christ and what He did on the cross on our behalf (His body being broken and His blood being shed)....do this and you are fine.

Sadly for most who are taught it merely as a symbolic ritual after a while it becomes "by wrote" and carries no real or effectual significance for them. In these churches they often go without holding the Lord's table for weeks or months seeing it as really not that important. This makes me sad. I believe this is what Paul means by partaking unworthily (it is the partaking not the partaker).

I want to also add that in taking this approach regarding other controversial in-house matters I discovered they had zero problem reconciling predestination and free will as two sides of one coin, that there will be a Kingdom of Christ here first and then on the new earth which follows His parousia, and that none of them believed in a pre-trib rapture but that the church (Spirit filled believers alive at the time) will go through the Anti-Christ's part of the trib period, suffer under his rule, and then at the parousia (second coming) he is consumed (by the brightness of His coming) and we are caught up (gathered) together (the alive IN CHRIST and those who had passed away) which is what has been called the rapture, and this is also the first resurrection.

These things are what they were taught by those who were taught by Christ so I also accept and believe these things...

 

[spockrates]

Understanding is fine and good. But if I'm eating crackers and drinking grape juice I'd say my understanding has been compromised a whole lot more than not knowing if the 'bread and wine' is 'really' the body of Jesus, or just a 'symbolic' thing which I'm doing for 'remembrance' purposes, and not so 'I'm really saved'....or whatever theology is being bantered about here with either POV.
Hope that helps you 'understand' my POV spockrates.

EDIT: PS I was born/raised Roman Catholic, left at age 19, but then at 22 I actually got born-again/saved.

Yeah, no. Clear as mud! But no worries.

 

[spockrates]

I don't see the word communion anywhere in the chapter, only your assumption, which is the context of the chapter. And we're a long ways from the last supper at this point also. Joh 6 is about coming to 'the Lord' in salvation.

See verse 29, 35 of that chapter. Then you'll realize that your spiritual hunger is satisfied in coming to Him and your spiritual thirst is satisfied in believing in Him.

John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

JOH 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

He is telling them how to attain the symbolic 'spiritual reality' which gives life, and contrasting that with the substance of physical bread which perishes.

True, Jesus doesn't use the word communion. He also never used the word Trinity.

But what you said about the verses cited makes sense at first, until I read further, and Christ says this:

John 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
​

What does the word eats mean? Is it a metaphor for something?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't see the word communion anywhere in the chapter, only your assumption, which is the context of the chapter. And we're a long ways from the last supper at this point also. Joh 6 is about coming to 'the Lord' in salvation.

See verse 29, 35 of that chapter. Then you'll realize that your spiritual hunger is satisfied in coming to Him and your spiritual thirst is satisfied in believing in Him.

John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

JOH 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

He is telling them how to attain the symbolic 'spiritual reality' which gives life, and contrasting that with the substance of physical bread which perishes.

But Catholics use John 6:53-54 to prove that the RCC's version of communion is for salvation. You basically proved my argument for me that their point is false.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Makes sense, until I read further, and Christ says this:

John 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
​

What does the word eats mean? Is it a metaphor for something?

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God that proceeds out of his mouth. Jesus also said he was a door and or the true vine. Jesus is speaking in spiritual terms.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

True, Jesus doesn't use the word communion. He also never used the word Trinity.

But what you said about the verses cited makes sense at first, until I read further, and Christ says this:

John 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
​

What does the word eats mean? Is it a metaphor for something?

Eating of the bread is akin to eating his flesh. In John chapter 4, we learn that Christ's meat that He ate was to do the will of the Father. Drinking his blood would be "believing" Romans 3:25 says,

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

So eating flesh = Doing God's will.
Drinking his blood = Believing in Christ as one's savior.


...

 

[spockrates]

And you are adding your own personal opinion by stating that everyone is guided by their own personal opinion when interpreting scripture.......

No.

If your opinion is correct ( and it is not correct ) then the Holy Spirit is guiding no one, and thus no one is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and thus no one is saved from the eternal lake of fire...

I'm not questioning the Holy Spirit's ability to convey they truth about something as vital as how to escape hell. I'm questioning people's ability (especially my own) to know when the Holy Spirit is spoken. Also, I wonder about the way such truth is conveyed--whether it's a personal thing, where the Holy Spirit shows the truth to each individual individually, or whether it's a corporate thing where the Holy Spirit shows the truth to each individual through specific spokespersons in the Church.

But anyway let each one accept what they shall accept and reject what they reject... God knows His own and in the end everyone will know if they are Gods or not..

That would be fine if God really doesn't require any specific belief or action to escape hell, but I'm not certain that's the case. Are you?

 

[bling]

Did God intend the Bible to be unclear?

So it seems to me the New Testament is somewhat a product of scriptural ambiguity. That is, certain significant passages of scripture use imprecise language, which lends itself to differing and even contradictory interpretations. If we accept the premise that the Bible is the word of God and divinely inspired, then does this mean such lack of preciaion and the resulting disagreements about the meaning of key passages is divinely intentional?

One example:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”​

The four words, "this is my body," are cause for a great divide amoung Christians. For instance, Catholics believe Christ to be saying:

"this is my [actual] body"
​

Thus they believe the Eucharist they eat at mass is actually the body of Christ, and a sacrament that contributes to their salvation. On the other hand, some other Christians believe Christ to be saying:

"this is [like] my body"​

Hence they see the bread as merely a symbol and deny the Catholic belief in the sacrament and divide over it.

The thing is, if anything is divinely inspired, these four words are, for they were spoken by God himself! So why not say five words instead of four and stop the future divide before it begins?

The Bible was written by inspired people, so God did not guide their hand in writing each word.

Think for a moment: If God had physically had each word written, it would be absolutely perfect and really have been obviously written by God Himself, with no differences in style or human limitations. We would then worship this perfect “book”, having to learn Greek and Hebrew languages of God, pilgrim the physical place where all this was done.

Does God want us to give “glory” to a book or the man?

There is no problem understanding scripture IF: A Christian with the indwelling Holy Spirit really needs to know something (this cannot be for intellectual reasons, to win a debate, to put someone down, to do nothing with it). The Christian can go on a fun quest for that truth (things easily gotten are quickly forgotten) and if I just hand you the answer you will have my answer, but it is not your answer. Quit using commentaries, but take multiple translations, pray a lot for wisdom, meditate waiting for God’s answer, use a concordance, use a lexicon and discuss your finding with likeminded sincere Christians.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No.



I'm not questioning the Holy Spirit's ability to convey they truth about something as vital as how to escape hell. I'm questioning people's ability (especially my own) to know when the Holy Spirit is spoken. Also, I wonder about the way such truth is conveyed--whether it's a personal thing, where the Holy Spirit shows the truth to each individual individually, or whether it's a corporate thing where the Holy Spirit shows the truth to each individual through specific spokespersons in the Church.



That would be fine if God really doesn't require any specific belief or action to escape hell, but I'm not certain that's the case. Are you?

We can have an assurance in knowing God and that He is talking to us if we find that we are keeping His Commandments. See 1 John 2:3-6.

Also, asking God for Him to show you the truth within His Word helps a lot, too.

But one has to be pure in heart about it and they cannot be coming in with any preconceived notions or beliefs when they are seeking the truth.

"Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." (Jeremiah 33:3).

Call on Him.

Remember the number.

333.

Jeremiah 33:3.


...

 

[spockrates]

Yes an interesting choice of examples. I also wrestled with questions about this passage for a time and after much prayer and consideration of all the arguments for and against, I took the following approach....

Since Jesus Himself had opened the minds of the Apostles to the scriptiures I decided to ask "Well then what did the Apostles teach that these things mean?"

Naturally the first place we look is in their writings and we get some insight in Paul but not much else. So the next step was to go to those who the Apostles themselves had taught and appointed as the first overseers (Bishops) in the churches they had initiated. So I read and explored ALL that could be known in the earliest Church fathers (1st and 2nd century) and then I read the historical recap given in Eusibius (around 300 AD) about those earliest leaders (either taught by the Apostles or their very own students) found in The History of the Church.

I was quite amazed at what I found. I found they all agreed that somehow (with full acceptance and no speculation being necessary) that somehow the body and blood of Christ ARE His body and blood. For me it rings more of a consubstantiation concept then a transubstantiation concept in their writings. They did not think of this as cannibalism nor a magical transformation incited by the word/formula of a Priest...they just took Paul's words literally and discerned His body in the breakiing of the bread and partook "in remembrance" of Him.

So whether it is one or the other modern speculations is really not our concern....when the bread is broken (or in the broken bread) our remembrance is Christ and what He did on the cross on our behalf (His body being broken and His blood being shed)....do this and you are fine.

Sadly for most who are taught it merely as a symbolic ritual after a while it becomes "by wrote" and carries no real or effectual significance for them. In these churches they often go without holding the Lord's table for weeks or months seeing it as really not that important. This makes me sad. I believe this is what Paul means by partaking unworthily (it is the partaking not the partaker).

I want to also add that in taking this approach regarding other controversial in-house matters I discovered they had zero problem reconciling predestination and free will as two sides of one coin, that there will be a Kingdom of Christ here first and then on the new earth which follows His parousia, and that none of them believed in a pre-trib rapture but that the church (Spirit filled believers alive at the time) will go through the Anti-Christ's part of the trib period, suffer under his rule, and then at the parousia (second coming) he is consumed (by the brightness of His coming) and we are caught up (gathered) together (the alive IN CHRIST and those who had passed away) which is what has been called the rapture, and this is also the first resurrection.

These things are what they were taught by those who were taught by Christ so I also accept and believe these things...

I know! Right? I mean, I love Augustine's quote from his Confessions:

Our souls are restless, O Lord, till they find their rest in Thee.
​

And I think, "What an awesome man of God!" Then I find he also wrote this:

Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: "This is My Body." No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.
​

And it makes me wonder. I mean, he died in 430 AD. So if what he believed wasn't true, does that mean the Church was deceived so soon after the apostles died?

 

[spockrates]

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God that proceeds out of his mouth. Jesus also said he was a door and or the true vine. Jesus is speaking in spiritual terms.


...

Understood. But my question isn't, "In what terms is Jesus speaking?" My question is instead, "What does the word eats mean?" In other words, what is eats a metaphor for?

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi, Skywiting. I'm curious why you quoted four translations. Also I see from your reply you seem appear to disagree with this author:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful ...
But appearances can be deceiving, so please forgive me if I'm mistaken. ​

I find all of them useful as well.
A LOT of things are Inspired by God.
Huge churches, Nice Music, Hushed silence, Visions of Mary, and Grilled Cheesus.



New American Standard Bible
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

King James Bible
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

International Standard Version
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

NET Bible
Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

​

 

[spockrates]

Eating of the bread is akin to eating his flesh. In John chapter 4, we learn that Christ's meat that He ate was to do the will of the Father. Drinking his blood would be "believing" Romans 3:25 says,

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

So eating flesh = Doing God's will.
Drinking his blood = Believing in Christ as one's savior.
...

My apologies for being so slow, but I'm having difficulty seeing how "eats my flesh" means "does my will," though I suppose a Catholic would kid you, saying, eating the body of Christ is his will!

Seriously, though, will you show what verses in John 4 demonstrate eating is a metaphor for obeying?

 

[spockrates]

The Bible was written by inspired people, so God did not guide their hand in writing each word.

Think for a moment: If God had physically had each word written, it would be absolutely perfect and really have been obviously written by God Himself, with no differences in style or human limitations. We would then worship this perfect “book”, having to learn Greek and Hebrew languages of God, pilgrim the physical place where all this was done.

Does God want us to give “glory” to a book or the man?

There is no problem understanding scripture IF: A Christian with the indwelling Holy Spirit really needs to know something (this cannot be for intellectual reasons, to win a debate, to put someone down, to do nothing with it). The Christian can go on a fun quest for that truth (things easily gotten are quickly forgotten) and if I just hand you the answer you will have my answer, but it is not your answer. Quit using commentaries, but take multiple translations, pray a lot for wisdom, meditate waiting for God’s answer, use a concordance, use a lexicon and discuss your finding with likeminded sincere Christians.

Hi Bling. Understood. But in the case of Matthew 26 and John 6, were considering what Jesus himself said, which isn't quite the same as considering what the apostles wrote in their epistles. Jesus wasn't inspired, he was the inspirer, I think.

 

[spockrates]

I find all of them useful as well.
A LOT of things are Inspired by God.
Huge churches, Nice Music, Hushed silence, Visions of Mary, and Grilled Cheesus.

New American Standard Bible
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

King James Bible
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

International Standard Version
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

NET Bible
Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Understood. But my question isn't, "In what terms is Jesus speaking?" My question is instead, "What does the word eats mean?" In other words, what is eats a metaphor for?

Eat means to eat. It is the object that is the metaphor.


...