Neither am I
the church
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
I think they are not saying the same thing. Peter is an apostle to gentiles. Albeit one house. And as I stated, I use NKJV almost exclusively. I have even changed the text KJV when quoting 2 Thessalonians 2. The late Bob Hill isn't the only one that says "falling away" in KJV is wrong.
You can list all of the individual translation problems you care to and it still doesn't overcome the fact the no one speaks the language that the KJV was written in any longer. If you want a perfect translation, forget it. It cannot happen - period. Just go get the Greek or Hebrew text and good luck with translating it yourself. If, on the other hand, you want a translation that can be read and understood by the English speaking world, the NKJV is the best that currently exists - at least as far as any that I know anything about.
[
Yes, that is what I said.
I misunderstood your point. Sorry!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It was no issue.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Today's gospel was about Jesus meeting the disciples on the road to Emmaus. I've always loved this passage, as Jesus asks them to tell Him about the events of the last few days in Jerusalem, while keeping Himself hidden from them. It's almost humorous, the way He asks, "what things?"
When do Word and Sacrament become known? In the breaking of the bread. And we are told this twice:
Luke: 24:30-31,35
Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.
Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.
And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.
When do Word and Sacrament become known? In the breaking of the bread. And we are told this twice:
Luke: 24:30-31,35
Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.
Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.
And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.
And when the Temple was torn down and rebuilt in 3 days. Oh, that was symbolic too, of the cross.
Idolater
Popetard
I'm glad you went to Mass, Anna.
Another brain washed idiot denies history on X.
Catholics describe murdering him while concluding they didn't murder him. It is like reading what the globalists tried to say to the idiots during covid.
Catholics describe murdering him while concluding they didn't murder him. It is like reading what the globalists tried to say to the idiots during covid.
In some places the Lord showed what happens if He is understood too literalisticly, as in the case of the leaven of Pharisees. But even in other stories, about the poor, or about hating one's mother and father, or even making oneself enuch, is it not clear that the Lord was referring to the spiritual things?
So, in speaking about the buliding of His Church on Peter, He was essentially referring to that confession that Peter expressed, namely, that Though are the Son of God. So, the Church was to be build to on that confession, and not on Peter, or even disciples, for in another place, the Lord addresses Peter as Satan, when Peter wanted to tempt the Lord, asking Him not to go where the Lord wanted to go, Peter caring for things of men, not the things of God. In that respect, consider the foundation on which some churches were built.
Besides, it is the Lord Alone, who was all the Divine Power, not only in the heavens, but also in the earths, thus in the church, thus the stories about the keys have also to be understood spiritually, and not as some believed, that they, limited human beings, have the power to admit or not to admit someone into the heavens. That is as challenging as to believe that the Lord cared about the leaven of Pharisees, and not the substantial things.
It is the spiritual sense, that clarifies how those things to be understood.
He didn't.
No one here denies the use of idioms, metaphors, hyperbole, analogies, symbolism, or other figures of speech. Scripture plainly contains all of those things.
What we deny is the idea that the existence of figurative language gives us permission to spiritualize any passage that conflicts with our theology.
There are objective ways to recognize figures of speech. Context matters. Grammar matters. Genre matters. Audience matters. Literary structure matters. Hebrew idioms can often be identified. Poetic language has recognizable characteristics. Hyperbole, metaphor, analogy, and symbolic imagery all have contextual indicators that distinguish them from straightforward propositional statements.
The proper question is not, “Does this passage fit my doctrine?” The proper question is, “What did the author intend to communicate?”
Once a person adopts the method of spiritualizing passages merely because the plain meaning creates theological tension, interpretation ceases to have rules. The text no longer governs the doctrine. The doctrine governs the text.
That approach becomes infinitely elastic. Any passage can then be transformed into meaning its opposite simply by appealing to some deeper “spiritual” interpretation that exists nowhere in the grammar, nowhere in the context, and nowhere in the author’s intent.
Ironically, the examples you mentioned actually prove the point rather than undermine it. The disciples misunderstood the “leaven of the Pharisees” precisely because Christ Himself clarified that He was speaking metaphorically. The surrounding context identified the figure of speech. Likewise, statements about hating father and mother, or plucking out an eye, contain obvious hyperbolic and comparative language consistent with well known Jewish rhetorical forms.
None of that establishes a license for uncontrolled allegorization. Quite the opposite. It demonstrates that figures of speech are understood through contextual and grammatical indicators, not through theological convenience.
If the internal sense is not known, than it is impossible to understand many things in the Word, and besides, if the doctrines are founded on the literal sense alone, without looking to the Lord God Jesus Christ, and without having an idea about the internal sense, then the fallacious doctrines will be created, and would be claimed that they are authentic and should be guarded against any "spiritualization/allegorization". Consider, for instance, all those proverbs that the Lord did not explain, and this related to the poor, to the eunuchs, etc etc. Moreover, some, as Origen, made himself a eunuch, because that thing was spoken of positively in the letter of the Word. Similarly, with the idea about rich having great difficulties coming into the heavens, as a result of which some deprived themselves of all riches.
More over, being on the guard against all the spiritualization/allegorization, the scribes and Pharisees of the Jewish Church were in favour of waiting Messiah, which will be, according to the letter of the prophecies, the king who will establish the kingdom, with all of its particulars. And so when the idea was brought forward that the Lord is not the worldly king, as it was according to the letter, and that his kingdom is not the kingdom of this world, as was according to the letter, that was a case that He was not the right Messiah, and not a few of the Jewish Church still believe that He is not the true Messiah.
So, the point is not whether the interperation suits one's doctrine, no matter how it is called, but whether the interpretation is true.
Certainly, there are various interpretations which are called "allegorical" or, at times, "hyperbolical", but which do not consistently, soundly and rationally explain the various particulars of the Word in the spiritual sense, and so the true intrepretations should be differentiated from the fallacious ones.
As to the letter, He can be considered to be building it on Peter. This is what the Roman-Catholic Church still believes in. The Orthodox departed from that to some degree, claminig essentially that the church was build on the whole clerical office.
But the church is built on the confession of Peter, though because the Lord spoke representatively, by correspondences, it does appear that He speaks about Peter. Though, again, in another place, He refers to him as Satan. And you cannot take what you like to fit your doctrine, and then exclude what you do not like. So, if you include the letter, then you have to include both passages. And in that regard, those who built the church on men, Peter in the first place, and not on the Lord Alone and the true confession of Him, do not built it on anything genuine .Which eventually results in the other abominations.
And how, in your view, are we to determine that?