Pope Benedict: Bible Cannot Be Taken Literally


Hard on the heels of the recent Vatican statement declaring that the Jews have no scriptural claim to the Promised Land comes another papal shocker.

It is contained in the pope's most recent "apostolic exhortation, Verbum Domini ("The Word of the Lord), issued on November 11.

In this lengthy "exhortation, the pope "has issued a lofty and impassioned plea for everyone in the church to rediscover the Bible (cna/ewtn News, November 11). But it's more than an "impassioned plea from this pope to his parishioners. It's a direct attack on all who believe the inerrancy of the literal Scriptures as inspired by God!

In direct relation to the study of the Bible, Pope Benedict has "criticized fundamentalist' or literalist' interpretations and urged renewed appreciation for the symbolic and spiritual interpretation techniques used by the ancient fathers of the church (ibid., emphasis mine).

In a most outlandish pontification, Benedict declared, "An authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmony with the faith of the Catholic Church.

This latest declaration by the pope tracks right back to his double endorsement of the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church.

Read the Full Article:
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php...
Opens in media box [Open in new window]
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (9 votes)
Please login or register to vote
hosscartwright's analysis:
Is this a prophetical event that is part of the "turning away" and "false teachings" described in the end times events?

jdl4christ
Joined: 07/17/2009
Posts: 4

Love one another...

Jesus left us with two commandments, love God and love one another. I see very little of the latter in this thread and it grieves me. Doesn't the world do a good enough job of tearing us down and beating us up? Don't ban freesoul, while I disagree with his beliefs, it is not my "duty" to argue with him. It is my duty to love him and let God do the rest.

MatthewJames
Rap-Con Supporter500+ posts
Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 507

Peace and Love

Amen! Yes we need to love even our enemy -but if they came charging at me with a knife I would shoot them! Peter tells us to give a defense in order to shut them up (essentially). And It is also said that we should get angry (not hate). In televised political debates, I always hear the Catholics and Priests preaching Love and Peace -at virtually any cost! No! No! No! That sounds great and makes them look squeeky cleen and all PC but....:
Too much Peace and Love =
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. 1 Thess 5
It is also said that anyone who doesnt support their family is worse than an infidel. We, the body of Christ, are called the virgin bride. Scripture also says that there are things we should get Angry about.
My version goes like this: And God saw Anger and it was Good -ok, maybe not, but in the fallen world it keeps the power balances/ struggles in check. We do not yet live in paradise.
Regarding the pope: If I were a wife tending to my house and other various marital obligations while my Husband was away on business, I would not stand for an imposter coming in, claiming to be my husband and having his way with evrything -including me! I would not go along with it and it would make me very ANGRY. As the husband, I would be more ANGRY at the person invading my home and my wife. In fact, I might be forced to end that persons life to protect my family (kids and grandkids, etc..).... I know I would want to. I would also expect, if possible, for my wife to do whatever necessary to rid our house of the malevolent intruder. If I were the intruder and I knew I was wrong, I would expect a battle. If I didnt know it was wrong, that doesnt matter -it was still wrong.
My point –its not all peace and love. Get angry at things that you need to be angry about. We both know that this is not a war between flesh and blood but spiritual wickedness in high places.
Love the person, expose the sin.
The Catholic church needs to be exposed (AGAIN)! And I am Angry how that institution corrupts and decieves good people -especially the youth. However, Not all Catholics are corrupt and not all are decieved. She is a thilthy, dirty, whore. Yes! And I pray for ALL the people involved in that organization. (Which includes many members of my own family).

freesoul001
Joined: 06/30/2009
Posts: 66

Funny

Funny I stop and you continue to piss on the Catholics! Who is the bad person here?
GIVE IT UP ALREADY!!!!

MatthewJames
Rap-Con Supporter500+ posts
Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 507

Change The Channel

Change the Channel brother. The rapture is clearly out of Catholic territory -so why do you care? I am not pissing on anyone and I am not even angry at you. I have anger for that institution. I have anger for all the people they killed for reading the Bible. Etc.., Etc... I have no problem with people who are Catholic. My mom is Catholic,and goes to church every week, I was confirmed Catholic, and I recently became a godfather to good friends' son. I LOVE CATHOLICS brother. I pray for them every day. In fact I believe I knew God when I was a Cathpolic but needed to fall away -out of that corrupt-pagen hybridized system in oder to find out the truth. Thats it. You may never get it. I dont understand you. Its to the point where I think you must just be playing. either way..

freesoul001
Joined: 06/30/2009
Posts: 66

You

Matthew I find your arguements to be mis guided! but in respect to the moderator I'm not going to argue! But if you want some answers then go visit my website www.allforthelove.webs.com I have some things in there that might grab your attention, Till then please stop your defaming of Cathoilcs that follow truth!
GOD bless you
Ron

MatthewJames
Rap-Con Supporter500+ posts
Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 507

Ron

I think you might be a little confused. I dont go out publicly defaming Catholics.I appreciate your concern, really. I hope you are just doing what you think is right. Please keep in mind, however, where you are (rap-con website) and what you are doing. The rapture clearly does not fit in with Catholic doctrine. You are on foriegn ground -what do you expect? I went to your site and the first thing I saw was all these pictures of Mary. That instantly turned me off. Can you please just answer one question? If the pope declares that the Bible should not be taken literally; Then on what ground does he stand? -And from where (what source) does he claim his authory?

poolshoowl's picture
poolshoowl
Joined: 09/04/2010
Posts: 45

Ignore him, I have already

Ignore him, I have already notified the administrators Matthew.

MatthewJames
Rap-Con Supporter500+ posts
Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 507

Good Advice

Thanks

freesoul001
Joined: 06/30/2009
Posts: 66

again

Again I suggested to stop as I already had and yet you all continue! and yes I fully believe in the rapture and as do most Catholics

a.x.i.sanchez
Joined: 01/25/2011
Posts: 6

Has Mr. Fraser even read Verbum Domini?

I do not come to bring any arguments but it appears that Mr. Fraser wrote this article out of disdain for the Church in general. What I mean is if anyone has read the Pope's Apostolic Exhortation, one would know that the Holy Father does not believe, nor state, that the bible cannot be taken literally. It seems that Mr. Fraser has fallen victim to secular assaults against the Pope to try and discredit Christianity in general. The Church teaches that there are two senses of Scripture: literal and spiritual; with the literal sense as a base for all Scripture. Pope Benedict in Verbum Domini quotes St Thomas Aquinas: 'all the senses of sacred Scripture are based on the literal sense'.
In case you have not read it either I will post a section of it here. Thank you, God Bless all of yall.

Literal sense and spiritual sense

"A significant contribution to the recovery of an adequate scriptural hermeneutic, as the synodal assembly stated, can also come from renewed attention to the Fathers of the Church and their exegetical approach.[117] The Church Fathers present a theology that still has great value today because at its heart is the study of sacred Scripture as a whole. Indeed, the Fathers are primarily and essentially "commentators on sacred Scripture.[118] Their example can "teach modern exegetes a truly religious approach to sacred Scripture, and likewise an interpretation that is constantly attuned to the criterion of communion with the experience of the Church, which journeys through history under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.[119]

While obviously lacking the philological and historical resources at the disposal of modern exegesis, the patristic and mediaeval tradition could recognize the different senses of Scripture, beginning with the literal sense, namely, "the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation.[120] Saint Thomas of Aquinas, for example, states that "all the senses of sacred Scripture are based on the literal sense.[121] It is necessary, however, to remember that in patristic and medieval times every form of exegesis, including the literal form, was carried out on the basis of faith, without there necessarily being any distinction between the literal sense and the spiritual sense. One may mention in this regard the medieval couplet which expresses the relationship between the different senses of Scripture:

"Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria,
Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.

The letter speaks of deeds; allegory about the faith;
The moral about our actions; anagogy about our destiny.[122]

Here we can note the unity and interrelation between the literal sense and the spiritual sense, which for its part is subdivided into three senses which deal with the contents of the faith, with the moral life and with our eschatological aspiration.

In a word, while acknowledging the validity and necessity, as well as the limits, of the historical-critical method, we learn from the Fathers that exegesis "is truly faithful to the proper intention of biblical texts when it goes not only to the heart of their formulation to find the reality of faith there expressed, but also seeks to link this reality to the experience of faith in our present world.[123] Only against this horizon can we recognize that the word of God is living and addressed to each of us in the here and now of our lives. In this sense, the Pontifical Biblical Commission's definition of the spiritual sense, as understood by Christian faith, remains fully valid: it is "the meaning expressed by the biblical texts when read, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the context of the paschal mystery of Christ and of the new life which flows from it. This context truly exists. In it the New Testament recognizes the fulfilment of the Scriptures. It is therefore quite acceptable to re-read the Scriptures in the light of this new context, which is that of life in the Spirit.[124]"

Here is the link to the entire writing:

www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

castille7's picture
castille7
100+ posts
Joined: 05/10/2009
Posts: 118

The Line in the Sand

Those who follow Jesus Christ and his teachings are the only one's that should be recognized as Christian. The word Christian means a follower of Christ. All that believe in other teachings (Teachings not inline with the Bible) are religious.
When Jesus drew the line in the sand it was dividing those that believe in him (The Word) and those that believed the laws of their religion.

a.x.i.sanchez
Joined: 01/25/2011
Posts: 6

Where in the bible...?

Maybe you can help me my friend, I don't wanna stir up a hornets nest but where would I find in the bible, that a Christian must follow the bible alone? And considering that the first to be called Christians (Acts 11:26) did not have a bible, how could their beliefs be inline with the bible? Are they to be considered by your definition, "religious"?

pookaloo2005's picture
pookaloo2005
Rap-Con Supporter500+ posts
Joined: 04/28/2010
Posts: 877

the early christians at that

the early christians at that time did not need the bible because the apostles( who were taught by Jesus Himself) were living among them, teaching the early christians what Jesus had taught them. the bible is the inspired word of God, not words of men
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. " 2 Timothy 3:15-17

a.x.i.sanchez
Joined: 01/25/2011
Posts: 6

I agree

Very good, I agree with your answer. The first Christians did not have nor need the bible because they had the apostles teaching them. But what about the late 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, and 4th century Christians? History show us that the bible did not come into existence as we know it til the late 4th - early 5th centuries. So were talking close to 400 years without a bible. Not to mention, bibles would not be accessible to the masses til the 16th century when the printing press was invented; and still only those who could afford one (or even read one for that matter) could own one. So there appears to be a very large gap of time. Isn't possible that the apostles handed down their authority to preach and teach the gospel, given unto them by Christ, to other men? Please explain.

pookaloo2005's picture
pookaloo2005
Rap-Con Supporter500+ posts
Joined: 04/28/2010
Posts: 877

i believe that during the

i believe that during the time gapof the apostles and the written word,that the church functioned through word of mouth i.e. what the apostles taught was handed down from person to person.... as we all know, when we as children played the game of secret and one person would tell the next person a sentence and so on and so on, until by the time the last person stated what heor she was told ... the sentence was completely different... i believe that God saw through time that hat the apostles learned from Jesus and taught was becoming corrupt ... God in His sovereignty and wisdom caused the Bible to be written and available to all... so that the truth of His Word would be known to all who choose to seek it..
i dunno just my thoughts..
either way, i'm grateful that we have His word to read for ourselves

a.x.i.sanchez
Joined: 01/25/2011
Posts: 6

No doubt

No doubt my friend. I too am grateful that we have His written word. And I respect your beliefs. I only wanted to point out that it is a narrow view that is historically in-accurate to assume that a Christian is to be defined as someone who follows the bible alone. I can see the point your trying to make, about the original gospel of Christ being corrupted so it was written down to be preserved; but this is where we, (respectfully I hope) disagree. The Early Church Fathers left behind a paper trail that is not considered Inspired by God, but is still considered by many to be at least historical and can teach us how the early Christians both read the Scriptures and functioned as a Church. To most Christians, these early writings are of little to no use at all; mainly because there not inspired by God. But I think that we do a big dis-service to ourselves by not at least trying to understand and know early traditional and historical and yes biblical Christianity. What do you think? And thank you for conversing with me in a respectful way. I may be a fool, but I think that it is possible, even on the internet, for all believers and non believers to discuss and debate and challenge one another without being hostile. God Bless my friend.

castille7's picture
castille7
100+ posts
Joined: 05/10/2009
Posts: 118

Christian or Religious?

I did not intend to have anyone believe that we should follow the Bible alone but the teachings of Jesus, although following the Bible alone will lead you to repentance and saved through Jesus. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are taught about thoughout the Bible, without the Holy Spirit Adam would have never been able to communicate with God. Before the Bible was created I'm sure God inspired man about Jesus soon after Adam and Eve sined. Those that believed in Jesus from that time on is what my definition of a Christian would be. Every religious denomination has their own interpretation of the Bible, this is why they have so many. It is from my own experience that these RELIGIOUS groups are those being decived by the false prophets. The reason I believe this is because many will be decieved just before the Rapture. If the Rapture were to occur today where would the false prophets have been? Who would the wolves in sheep clothing have been? How else will even the very elect be deceived? 2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Satan is not coming to deceive this World, this World was already deceived before we were born. I'm not saying we should not attend Church, but I do lean more on the non-denominational Churches, although none are the perfect Church and they also have false prophets. This again is why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us daily and we should study to show oursleves approved.

I do not teach this freely about the World and maybe I should? I mention this on Rap-Con because if someone is on this site they have a better chance at grasping this for discussion than just any John Doe.

I too am not here to argue in any way, I love the idea of Iron sharpening Iron and invite discussion on these topics.

Your Brother Castille

tracy b.'s picture
tracy b.
Rap-Con Supporter1000+ posts
Joined: 05/26/2010
Posts: 1259

and your point is...?

Are you trying to prove the validity/superiority of the Catholic Church's position/teachings versus man learning straight from the Bible and guidance from the Teacher/Holy Spirit? If so, you won't get many takers on this site. The Catholic Church hoarded the Word as a corporate entity, delving it out in pieces as they saw fit until God had one of your own go against that. Look at the Catholic Church versus the apostles. One is a religious system that incorporates intervention/worship of saints and "spiritual" man's intervention for common man to come before God. A system that has become more & more corrupt over time.

We worship the one, true Jesus. Only Him; He is our intercessor, not man. The apostles modeled this for us, pointing us toward God's Word, our Teacher/Historical Account. Only His Hand is responsible for bringing the Word down through the ages. Not man or a religious system. Whatever part the Catholic Church played in that was used/orchestrated by God for a time, but it does not validate the Catholic Church itself. The only true Church, the body of Christ, is made up of believers who believe in His sacrifice and follow His Way. His path. No one else's way, and no other religious system's way. This is THE WAY.

a.x.i.sanchez
Joined: 01/25/2011
Posts: 6

thank you.

not trying to prove anything, just asking questions. thanks

tracy b.'s picture
tracy b.
Rap-Con Supporter1000+ posts
Joined: 05/26/2010
Posts: 1259

gotcha

understood

Rap-Con.com is a community of people who post news articles end editorials concerning Bible prophecy.
All views and opinions expressed are those of the individual posting them and are not necessarily the views of Rap-Con.com or its operators.