You're serious. You don't see me being critical of Lula's arguments here at JU? Talk about a selective memory...

gah!!! You're easy on her. Com'on admit it. Hey, I shouldn't even say this. I actually like Lula. I just think she's in very deep and her ladder's on the wrong wall.....

And you? I think your ladder is in mid air, not hanging onto anything.   

MMkay. Evidently you only read the posts that are directed at you. I've grilled Lula a lot, but hey, whatever makes your persecution complex valid for you.

He's grilled Lula bucketsfull. You obviously just haven't seen those threads, but he's been just as bash-happy with her as you, KFC . . .

BAKERSTREET asks---- Do you really think the Bible translates itself?

and KFC replies-----Absolutely.
it does, but if you don't wish to use it in context, or use selective scripture than you can make it into whatever you wish it to be. That's why we have so many diff groups out there.

Hello everyone out there, good discussion going here; I think I’ll join in the fun.

The Bible does not interpret or translate itself. This is also called private judgment or private interpretation of Scripture. This fallacy is a fundamental element of the principle of Sola Scriptura, a construct of the Protestant forefathers. By Sola Scriptura, Protestants declare that the Bible and the Bible only, is the sole rule of faith. Believing that the Bible can interpret itself has led Protestants on a path of confusion, division and disunity right from the revolting gate back in the 1500’s. Reread your post KFC. You’re wrong before the word “but”, and you’ve nailed it after it. Protestantism has been fracturing from the start in one, long rolling mass of protest because each religious camp wraps itself in the mantle of “religious truth” and claims it has the correct interpretation of Scripture. By using the principle of “Scripture alone”, no one can know for sure which of all the competing sects has the right interpretation....the result---not what St. Paul in Eph.4:4-5 calls one faith, one baptism, one Spirit,--- but all different kinds of pick and choose doctrines; some not exactly Apostolic.....like the Bread of Life is symbolic or figurative St.John 6.


Protestantism stakes salvation on the possession of a Bible. Ever wonder how they account for the hundreds of thousands of souls who lived before the Bible was printed? There was no Sola Scriptura for 1500 years before the Protestant Revolt. Doesn’t that impute that God was indifferent to their salvation and end logically in the blasphemous conclusion that He failed to provide an adequate means of conveying the knowledge of His Truth?


This is Protestantism---which KFC espouses---the freedom from all subjection to authority except one’s own to think out what the Bible means for ones self. But how can that be since we know that Christ intended every Christian to hold precisely the same truth, the same set of doctrines and that these must be unchangeable as coming from Him and His Apostles? Christ came as a teacher and He established the teaching Church to continue His mission which is the eternal salvation of souls.


It’s interesting to note that in 1Tim.3:15, it isn’t the Bible, but the Church that is (the visible living community Christ founded upon St.Peter and the Apostles and headed by their successors) called the “pillar and ground of truth”. This passage doesn’t diminish the Bible, nor am I, rather it shows that Christ established an authoritative teaching Church which was commissioned to teach all nations and that He would give her the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth until the end of time. St.John 16:13. I can lay out one verse after another which shows that Christ emphasized the authority of His Church and the role she would have in safeguarding divine revelation, which includes His written Word, (Sacred Scripture) and His oral Word, (Sacred Apostolic Tradition) which Catholics call the Deposit of the Faith.


As I’ve said before, the Bible is eminently a Catholic Book. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Bible was written by members (Apostles and Evangelists) of the Church, it was translated and preserved by the Church, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the canons were selected and determined by the Church (Sacred Tradition actually), and therfore, it is her office to officially declare what it means. In his book, Where we got the Bible, Henry Graham writes, “The Bible is intended for instruction, meditation, spiritual reading, encouragement, devotion, and also serves as proof and testimony of the Church's doctrines and divine authority; but as a complete and exclusive guide to Heaven in the hands of every man---this it never was and never could be. The Bible in the Church, the Church before the Bible, --the Church the maker and interpreter of the Bible--that is right. The Bible above the Church; the Bible independent of the Church; the Bible and the Bible only, the religion of Christians, that is wrong. The one is the Catholic position; and the other is the Protestant.”

Since the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it follows that it needs an interpreter for 2 reasons. 1--because Christ established a visible living Church to teach with His authority. He never instructed or implied that His disciples might go out and write a book and that people would be allowed to come to whatever interpretation they may. 2---and this is the interesting one---the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.
Regarding the 2nd point---2St.Peter 3:16 reads that there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (distort), as they do also the other scriptures to their own destruction.” In this 1st verse there are 3 things about the Bible and its interpretation: 1---it contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear; a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative teacher to make the passages clear and understandable. 2---it is not only possible that people could “wrest” or distort the meaning of Scripture, this was being done from the earliest days of the Church. 3---to purposely distort the meaning of Scripture is a serious thing. It’s obvious, at least to me, that St.Peter didn’t mean for the Bible to be the sole rule of faith.

In Acts 8:26-40, we read the account of the deacon, St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit leads St.Philip to approach the Ethiopian. When St.Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question: “Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?” Even more telling is the answer given by the Ethiopian: “And how can I, unless some man show me?” Then, St.Philip, known as the Evangelist, who was commissioned by the Apostles Acts 6:6 and who preached the Gospel with authority Acts 8:4-8, explained the passage and then after preaching Christ, he baptized the eunuch. The point is that the eunuch verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself for if it were, the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias and he would have just blurted out that he understood it just fine.


There is also 2St.Peter 1:21; 2:1: which states “Understanding this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation...”. Here, the Bible itself is stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for individual interpretation. It is also most telling that this verse is proceeded by a section on the Apostolic witness v.12-18, and followed by a section on false teachers. St.Peter is contrasting genuine Apostolic teaching with false prophets and teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the 2. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.


Finally, the assertion by Protestants that the Bible is its own interpreter is nothing more than an exercise in futility. The claim goes that one can correctly interpret any given passage by comparing it with the rest of what the Bible teaches. We’ve already seen the problem with this line of reasoning. Ask 10 people to give their interpretation of a given passage and you can come up with 10 different explanations. If the Bible were able to interpret itself, since there is only one Holy Spirit giving one truth to all, why do you not always obtain identical interpretations? If this diversity of 10 is multiplied by thousands or millions, we see the result and its name is Protestantism. Ahhh, Luther, I just can’t respect him.

PS. of Bakerstreet taking me to task?........it's true.....and it's OK, one learns from dialogue and being told to go educate yourself!!!! I am Bakerstreet, ....better watch out......round two coming up!!!

KFC POSTS: gah!!! You're easy on her. Com'on admit it. Hey, I shouldn't even say this. I actually like Lula. I just think she's in very deep and her ladder's on the wrong wall.....

And you? I think your ladder is in mid air, not hanging onto anything.


Really, KFC, on Bakerstreet. Not hanging onto anything? Yikes!!!

JU could be an admiration society, because I like you too KFC. And, I don't think Protestants are icky. Not at all, I think they are roaming around looking for "the Ladder".

Happy St. Valentine's Day, everybody. Give out lots of hugs and kisses today.

So, he is an equally opportunity basher after all....ya, I've seen some gentle take to task but I guess I missed the good stuff.....lol.



hahah Well I found the ladder. Christ talked about this ladder in John 1 when he said:

"I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

He was referring of course to Jacob's ladder way back in Genesis when Jacob saw this ladder with angels going up and down. Christ right here is saying he is that ladder. Now....LOL. the question is.....according to some logic here.....is he a real (physical) ladder like he was real (physical) bread? Or is he as I've been asserting all along that this is another spiritual truth using the physical?



well that's my take. I don't see him as wanting to touch anything. He wants to be absolutely sure before he puts his ladder up against anything. I don't think he's found the right building yet.

I definitely won't settle for what I know to be flawed. I won't excuse it with patchwork doctrine and stretched scriptures to cover the gaps. Given the choice between blaspheming God or distrust for paper and ink, I choose not to tar God with the awfulness of man's primitive mythologies.

If you'd think about it, KFC, Lula is sitting there, right now with a Bible that doesn't agree with yours. It has books that yours doesn't. She believes hers to be inerrant, and in the great scheme of things there's nothing proving her wrong.

So, I don't even see a ladder in your or Lula's equation. I see buildings and books. I see traditions and mythologies. Anything that differs with them, you reject. If God doesn't fit the description in a man-made book, or a man-made church, you guys reject Him. How frightening.

Sounds so much like the pharisees who, blinded by their doctrine and tradition, couldn't recognize Jesus for what He was.

but.....it seems to me you like to quote from the book when it suits you.

In the Pharisees case, what did Jesus say? He said....go and search the scriptures. He always pointed them to the scriptures....always. He said the scriptures tell of me. You would recognize me if it were truly God you were searching for because I have revealed myself to you via the OT.

That's what I'm doing. Geeesh Baker, if it was good enough for Jesus, wouldn't it be for me and you?

I believe God has revealed himself to us via the scriptures, Old and NEW. The while NT is that JEsus is who the OT spoke of. Jesus is the Messiah we've all been waiting for so says Paul and Peter and the rest. That was what their whole sermons were about in Acts. Jesus has come. They only had the OT to go by and they taught from that.

So actually you've got it backwards. I'd be like the Pharisee if I dismissed the scriptures to make God out to be what I wanted him to be disregarding what he wrote about himself.

Heck yes, I won't allow documents from primitive and barbaric people to define God for me. I won't tell God that unless he meets the definition carved out by barely civilized people He doesn't exist. If I did, I would be placing the mythology of man over God.



No, both of you hold the worldly, the temporal, the man-made as what determines whether or not God is God. You don't even pick the best of us, either, you pick material that lauds awful, barbaric behavior. If Jesus knocked on your door and differed on iota from what your paper and ink says, you'd deny Him.

That's the pharisees in a nutshell, imho.

and that's just it....he won't. You talk about "iota." He said every jot and tittle will be fulfilled. So yes, I'm sticking with scripture. He'll come back just as he said he would...you can find that in Rev 19 or before that in 1 Thess 4. Just as he himself picked up the scriptures and read about himself (Luke 4) so too will he be coming back the second time like he said he was according to scripture.

The first time, the Pharisees wouldn't believe it. It's not that they didn't know the scriptures. They CHOSE to believe the scriptures that spoke of his kingly position, they chose not to believe in his servant one. So just like you are doing....they picked and chose what sciptures they wanted forming Christ to be what they wanted. You do the same thing. You put God/Jesus into a specific category and say he wouldn't do such and such. You accept him as lamb of God, but I'm seeing that you don't accept him as Lion of Judah. Many want to talk of the love of God, but leave out the justice of God.

See the OT is full of Jesus first coming as a servant and his second coming as the Lion of Judah, the King of the earth. The Pharisees skipped the servant parts thinking Jesus would come back an elitist like them, and they would be sitting at the King's table since they were such law abiding Pharisees.....only to find out that Jesus bypassed them and went to the lower parts of humanity. So, according to them, using only portions of scripture, this couldn't be the Messiah. He even said he came the first time to serve and to save. But that is not going to be his mission when he returns. It will be one of justice and vengeance so if that's what you're referring to, then it will be you who will be surprised. By then it will be too late.

I don't like to call them Pharisees...they were really Phariblinds.

No, I won't accept that God is a hypocrite, a murderer, a Nazi. I don't believe God would hang around with Satan and allow him to kill people on a bet. I don't believe that God is somehow LESS civilized than we are. If you choose to believe that, fine, whatever you can stomach, I guess. Don't pretend it is much different than the God of the Philistines or any other from that time, though.

me either.....WE AGREE!!

my mantra to you again....same evidence, diff conclusion.

Do you really think the Bible translates itself?

KFC POSTS: Absolutely. He was pretty clear. He wasn't talking about the physical. That's why he asked what if you shall see me leave and ascend? He was saying....no, it's not physical. I'll be leaving. I'm leaving you with a spiritual truth. The physical or literal meaning of the words was plainly ruled out. So next you have to go to the spiritual meaning. I don't need to write pages to back this up. It's only unclear to the CC. Christ was NEVER about the physical. Just a quick overview of the gospels makes that perfectly clear.



Hi KFC.

May I remind you that with Christ, all things are possible.


KFC POSTS: So in this discourse Jesus is not even making a direct reference to Holy Communion although it does convey the same truth in words as Communion coveys in action.

Actually your are correct, Jesus only make a promise of Holy Communion that He keeps a year later at the Last Supper when He institutes the Holy Eucharist and gives His Body, BLood, Soul and Divinity in the form of consecrated bread. It's awesome!


And you know He made some promises in the discourse He had with the Jews and disciples. He gave these promises at the time of the 3rd Pasch. He fulfilled them a year later when He instituted the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

It is clear that Jesus is entirely present in the most Holy sacrament under the form of bread when He says, I am the LIving Bread which come down from Heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. The bread which I give shall be my flesh for the life of the world.

In His discourse, Our Lord distinctly and without using any figurative language at all, foretold the atoning Sacrifice of His Death, telling those present that He would give His flesh and blood for the world. Searching the Scriptures, we find exactly how Christ intended to give His Flesh and Blood for the faithful to eat. The full explanation is in the account of the Last Supper.

"And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said, "Take and eat, this is my Body. And taking the cup, he gave thanks and gave it to them saying,"All of you drink of this, For this is my Blood." St.Matt.26:26-28; St.Mark 14:22-24; St.Luke 22:19-20.

The bread and wine of Holy Communion were not mere symbols or spiritual repositories of Christ as you believe. In truth, the bread and wine are miraculously transformed by the power of Almighty God into His true and living Flesh and Blood, only the appearance of bread and wine remaining. Not only do I have the words of the promise and the words of the fulfillment of the promise to convince me of this, I have the words of the Apostles for they too believed that the bread and wine duly consecrated on the altar became the actual physical Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Of this, St. Paul wrote, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the sharing of the blood of Christ? And the bread that we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" 1Cor.10:16. "But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup; for he who eats and drinks unworthily, without distinguishing the body of the Lord, eats and drinks judgment to himself". 1Cor. 11: 28-29.

Surely, St.Paul wouldn't say that a person brings judgment on himself if he drinks and eats unworthily if Christ only meant what He said figuratively or symbolically.

Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper. It's sacrificail dimension was revealed. Christ offers Himself for the salvation of mankind. But why? So, we can live with Him eternally. The Church, as one family, celebrating the Holy Mass where the priest following Jesus' command, "Do this in remembrance of me", consecrates the bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul and DIvinity, shares in the heavenly banquet and is perfected in love and united in that love. There is absolutely nothing on earth that is better than this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Actually if you look close at this you'll see this was not said at the last supper where Christ institutes communion. Most don't even think about that. In fact, John is the only gospel where he doesn't even cover the communion service as the other three gospel writers do. So the context isn't even communion.

Yes, KFC, give it up, the context of St.John 6 leads to the context of the Last Supper which leads to the context of Holy COmmunion which St. John doesn't cover in his Gospel. So what? You're pulling the same foolishness here that you did with "Peter , you are the rock" complaining that verse was in all the others and not included in St. Mark. So what? From this are we to think that if all 4 Gospels don't report the same thing, it did not happen?

--------------------------------------------------------------------


KFC POSTS: He was pretty clear. He wasn't talking about the physical. That's why he asked what if you shall see me leave and ascend? He was saying....no, it's not physical. I'll be leaving. I'm leaving you with a spiritual truth. The physical or literal meaning of the words was plainly ruled out. So next you have to go to the spiritual meaning. I don't need to write pages to back this up. It's only unclear to the CC. Christ was NEVER about the physical. Just a quick overview of the gospels makes that perfectly clear.


This is the verse to which you are referring: V 63-64: "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."


KFC, you're private interpretation technique is mis-interpreting this. You better give a quick overview of the Gospel and read how Christ was physically present as He ascended into Heaven, before the disciple's eyes. Equally as clearly as Christ foretold of His atoning Sacrifice of His death, He foretold His Ascension, when He said that the Son of man (the Incarnate Son of God who came down from Heaven-[KFC-this is Jesus-- in human flesh--i.e. physical] would (as Son of Man, and therfore His human nature) return to where He was before His Incarnation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Read the whole passage in context starting even with Chap 4 with the woman at the well. Then we go to the feeding of physical bread to the 5,000 directly before this present discussion and read for yourself.

Jesus discourse at Capharnaum follows the miracle of multiplication and distribution of the loaves. Our Lord's miracles serve to increase the faith of the disciples. The grace of faith was offered to some of the Jews and they refused...they resisted God's grace. Besides the increase of faith,the miracle of multiplication of loaves (bread) has one special object-----to foreshadow and to prepare hearts for the marvelous Food which He gives us in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist---the gft which He promised on the following day. Our Lord in the Eucharist feeds the souls of the faithful with the most precious bread from heaven, multiplying His own Body and distributing It by the hands of His priests. And with this heavenly Food, all are satisfied, for IT (is the spirit that quickeneth) appeases our spiritual hunger by uniting us with Our Lord's Body, BLood, Soul and DIvinity. Jesus, the author of all grace.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


KFC POSTS: Remember when this was first taught by the CC the scriptures were not open to the general public. When they were, many did leave and this was one of those passages in question.

Ahh, KFC, please tell me more about this allegation of yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


KFC POSTS: Bishop Augustine of Hippo (4th Century) said this:

"The hard saying cannot be taken literally since it would seem to be enjoining a crime or a vice: it is therefore a figure, bidding us communicate in the sufferings of our Lord and secretly and profitable treasure in our hearts the fact that his flesh was crucified and pierced for us." He sums the matter up Crede et manducasti. "Believe and thou hast eaten.

All of the Church Fathers were in agreement maintaining that by virtue of the consecration the bread became by the omnipotent power of God ALmighty, the true flesh and blood of Jesus. They wrote a great deal on the subject calling the bread and wine consecrated on the altar "Eucharist". The quote you supplied from St. Augustine doesn't contradict this, rather it goes to His promise to sacrifice His human
body (flesh and blood) for the life of the world. St. Augustine said of the Holy Eucharist, "O Sacrament of Love! O sign of unity! O bond of Charity! He who hath life finds here indeed a life to live and to live by."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------