The Bible Tells Me So

[Left Coast]

Who would you expect to be the authority on the creation of man?

In other words, if you wanted to read about what is man, and how he was created, where would you go to find out?

I'd suggest you go to Moses because that's where you'll find the answer. he is the one who tells what man is and how he was created.

My question is, why do they not believe Moses?

Do you think Jesus or Paul would or have disagreed with Moses about what is man and how he was created?

I think not.

Sadly, Bible believers are divided on what Moses/the Torah have to say on the creation of man. So, yet another example that illustrates the problem.

 

[LightofTruth]

Sadly, Bible believers are divided on what Moses/the Torah have to say on the creation of man. So, yet another example that illustrates the problem.

Why are they divided? They don't let the words speak for themselves, is what I see.

Before you can let words speak for themselves you have to know what they mean. Definitions and context.

"let us make man in our image after our likeness".

The only "us" that was around when man was created were God and His angels.

What does the word "image" mean? Strong says it means a representative figure. Like idols were representative figures of false god's. The Septuagint uses the word ikon in Genesis 1:26.
So how does the Greek New Testament understand the word ikon?

It means the same as the word used in Hebrew. A figure, a statue, a representative likeness.

So, why are people trying to tell me it means something it doesn't?

God formed man from the earth. He made a figure a statue, from the ground and call him man. Then God breathed into the man of dust and the man, the statue or figure, created in the image of God, became a living soul or life.

Study the use of the word "image" in the O.T. and N.T. and you'll find I'm right on the money.

 

[Left Coast]

Why are they divided? They don't let the words speak for themselves, is what I see.

Before you can let words speak for themselves you have to know what they mean. Definitions and context.

"let us make man in our image after our likeness".

The only "us" that was around when man was created were God and His angels.

What does the word "image" mean? Strong says it means a representative figure. Like idols were representative figures of false god's. The Septuagint uses the word ikon in Genesis 1:26.
So how does the Greek New Testament understand the word ikon?

It means the same as the word used in Hebrew. A figure, a statue, a representative likeness.

So, why are people trying to tell me it means something it doesn't?

God formed man from the earth. He made a figure a statue, from the ground and call him man. Then God breathed into the man of dust and the man, the statue or figure, created in the image of God, became a living soul or life.

Study the use of the word "image" in the O.T. and N.T. and you'll find I'm right on the money.

It's not me you need to convince. It's other Bible believers.

 

[Trailblazer]

Would you give a flashlight to a blind man to help him see? Would you give written instructions in German to someone who doesn't speak it? I hope not. Similarly, God allegedly gave us the Bible, knowing full well that its message would be wildly misunderstood and there would be massive confusion, even among those who believe the book is accurate, as to its meaning. So he chose a method that inconsistently delivers his message. Why?

Yes, I believe that God knew all of that would happen because God is All-Knowing.
Why Did God allow the Bible to be written as it was, knowing full well what would happen?
Well, from my perspective as a Baha'i, I think God allowed it because it was somehow necessary to lead up to the new age in which we are now living.

I Believe that God knew He would be sending Baha'ullah in the future to explain what we need to know about the Bible and clear everything up that had been terribly misconstrued, but since most people either do not know about Baha'u'llah or have rejected Him, they remain in the dark. That is in no way God's fault because God has done His due diligence by sending Baha'u'llah to clean up the mess in the kitchen humans have made lover the centuries.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not me you need to convince. It's other Bible believers.

I wish him the best of luck in that endeavor.

 

[LightofTruth]

Would you give a flashlight to a blind man to help him see? Would you give written instructions in German to someone who doesn't speak it? I hope not. Similarly, God allegedly gave us the Bible, knowing full well that its message would be wildly misunderstood and there would be massive confusion, even among those who believe the book is accurate, as to its meaning. So he chose a method that inconsistently delivers his message. Why?

Yes, I believe that God knew all of that would happen because God is All-Knowing.
Why Did God allow the Bible to be written as it was, knowing full well what would happen?
Well, from my perspective as a Baha'i, I think God allowed it because it was somehow necessary to lead up to the new age in which we are now living.

I Believe that God knew He would be sending Baha'ullah in the future to explain what we need to know about the Bible and clear everything up that had been terribly misconstrued, but since most people either do not know about Baha'u'llah or have rejected Him, they remain in the dark. That is in no way God's fault because God has done His due diligence by sending Baha'u'llah to clean up the mess in the kitchen humans have made lover the centuries.

Why did Jesus speak in parables?

And why did he says things like, "eat my flesh and drink my blood"?

Well, when his disciples were confused at his parables they asked him what they meant. And others thought he was just a nut case.
And when those who took his words literally about eating him, stopped following him.

Jesus explained the parables to those who were interested enough to ask. And those who realized his words were spiritual (about eating him) would understand what he meant in a different way.

So it seems the scripture isn't meant for people who are not interested enough to seek out the truth, or for those who can't separate the spiritual from the literal.

 

[Tambourine]

So it seems the scripture isn't meant for people who are not interested enough to seek out the truth, or for those who can't separate the spiritual from the literal.

And yet, among its most ardent readership are Biblical literalists.

 

[LightofTruth]

And yet, among its most ardent readership are Biblical literalists.

The Bible speaks in plain language and similitude.

The heavens and earth were finished in six days. Plain language.

"And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. " Rev 11:8. Similitude

 

[Tambourine]

The Bible speaks in plain language and similitude.

The heavens and earth were finished in six days. Plain language.

"And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. " Rev 11:8. Similitude

It does not, and you know it does not. For example, when Jesus says "eat my flesh and drink my blood" then you know full well he isn't advocating cannibalism or espousing a weird fetish for being eaten by his close friends, even though that would be what the plain text would suggest.

There are numerous passages or entire books full of oblique references or non-obvious symbolism that just aren't open to a plain textual reading, with Daniel and Revelations only being the most obvious examples. Being a student of the Bible, you know this full well.

 

[LightofTruth]

It does not, and you know it does not. When Jesus says "eat my flesh and drink my blood" then you know full well he isn't advocating cannibalism or espousing a weird fetish for being eaten by his close friends.

I never said he was. I think you misunderstood. I said his words were spiritual and not to be taken literally as the RCC does.

There are numerous passages or entire books full of oblique references or non-obvious symbolism, with Daniel and Revelations only being the most obvious examples.

I think maybe you ought to re-read what I wrote. Symbolism is found throughout the Bible. And so is plain language.

 

[Tambourine]

I never said he was. I think you misunderstood. I said his words were spiritual and not to be taken literally as the RCC does.

The Roman Catholic Church does not support a literalist reading of the Bible. Quite the opposite.

I think maybe you ought to re-read what I wrote. Symbolism is found throughout the Bible. And so is plain language.

Which makes your cherry picking of quotes just more egregious. We both know the Bible isn't just plain language.

 

[LightofTruth]

The Roman Catholic Church does not support a literalist reading of the Bible. Quite the opposite.



Which makes your cherry picking of quotes just more egregious. We both know the Bible isn't just plain language.

The RCC takes Jesus' words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood LITERALLY. Their doctrine is called transubstantiation. It means that the wafer they eat becomes the actual flesh and blood of Jesus.

I think you have a serious problem with reading because I did not ONLY say the Bible uses plain language but that it ALSO use similitude language.

Hey listen, if you continue to misrepresent my words I'm going to ignore you.

 

[Tambourine]

The RCC takes Jesus' words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood LITERALLY. Their doctrine is called transubstantiation. It means that the wafer they eat becomes the actual flesh and blood of Jesus.

No, they become the substance of the flesh and blood. Hence the term "transsubstantiation".

Substance theory - Wikipedia

No serious Catholic Christian believes that they are committing literal cannibalism during the Eucharist.

 

[LightofTruth]

No, they become the substance of the flesh and blood. Hence the term "transsubstantiation".

Substance theory - Wikipedia

No serious Catholic Christian believes that they are committing literal cannibalism during the Eucharist.

Dictionary
tran·sub·stan·ti·a·tion
/ˌtran(t)səbˌstan(t)SHēˈāSH(ə)n/

noun
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

1. (especially in the Roman Catholic Church) the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.

Transubstantiation (Latin: transsubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

 

[LightofTruth]

The above post (#194) explains the RCC doctrine called transubstantiation very clearly.

The substance of the Eucharistic elements are converted into the whole substance of the body and blood of Christ. The Eucharist only appears to be what it is, but in fact, it has converted into something else, namely, the body and blood of Jesus.
Therefore, when the Eucharist is eaten, the actual body and blood of Christ is eaten.

Now, you can call that idea whatever you want, but we who speak the English language call that cannibalism.


can·ni·bal·ism
/ˈkanibəlizəm/
noun

1. the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus explained the parables to those who were interested enough to ask. And those who realized his words were spiritual (about eating him) would understand what he meant in a different way.

So it seems the scripture isn't meant for people who are not interested enough to seek out the truth, or for those who can't separate the spiritual from the literal.

I fully agree.

 

[Tambourine]

The above post (#194) explains the RCC doctrine called transubstantiation very clearly.

The substance of the Eucharistic elements are converted into the whole substance of the body and blood of Christ. The Eucharist only appears to be what it is, but in fact, it has converted into something else, namely, the body and blood of Jesus.
Therefore, when the Eucharist is eaten, the actual body and blood of Christ is eaten.

Now, you can call that idea whatever you want, but we who speak the English language call that cannibalism.


can·ni·bal·ism
/ˈkanibəlizəm/
noun

1. the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species

II. What is This Sacrament Called?
V. The Sacramental Sacrifice Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence
VI. The Paschal Banquet

Now tell me again that Catholics are literally eating human flesh.

 

[LightofTruth]

II. What is This Sacrament Called?
V. The Sacramental Sacrifice Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence
VI. The Paschal Banquet

Now tell me again that Catholics are literally eating human flesh.

They're not literally eating the flesh of Jesus. They just think they are by definition of their doctrine.

This is a quote from your first reference:

"by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him."

In other words, the one broken bread is Christ. And that's what they think they eat, Christ. According to their doctrine.

This is a quote from your second reference:

"We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.

That affirms what the first quote affirmed. That the bread and wine mysteriously become the body and blood of Christ, which they eat.

This is a quote from your third preference:

The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.

That says the same as the other references you posted. It's a banquet of the body and blood of Jesus!

Bon appétit

 

[metis]

Much like we see being used in the Trinitarian concept, the Eucharist involves the use of the term "essence" as Aristotle and Plato had a strong philosophical influence in the diaspora, and the scriptures in the early Church were written in Koine Greek.

To demonstrate, if I was unfamiliar with what is an "automobile", and you started listing all its parts, my question after you're finished likely would be "But what is it used for?"-- iow, its "essence".

So, the Body & Blood of Christ are of Jesus' "essence" at the Eucharist, thus more than just being symbolic.

 

[LightofTruth]

Much like we see being used in the Trinitarian concept, the Eucharist involves the use of the term "essence" as Aristotle and Plato had a strong philosophical influence in the diaspora, and the scriptures in the early Church were written in Koine Greek.

To demonstrate, if I was unfamiliar with what is an "automobile", and you started listing all its parts, my question after you're finished likely would be "But what is it used for?"-- iow, its "essence".

So, the Body & Blood of Christ are of Jesus' "essence" at the Eucharist, thus more than just being symbolic.

Are you saying that the RCC, according to their doctrine of the Eucharist, are not actually eating the flesh and blood of Christ?

What do they mean when they say that the "essence" of the bread and wine is converted into the "essence" of the body and blood of Christ?

Anyone who reads that would understand that the bread is no longer bread and the wine is no longer wine because it has been changed in its essence to become the essence of what is the body and blood of Christ.

If the bread and wine are not mysteriously converted into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, then what is it converted into?
And if it is converted into something that is not the actual body and blood of Jesus, then the RCC ought to change its doctrine because that's what their doctrine teaches. As I have already proven by previous posts in this thread.