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. Just follow the logic. ....if Christ was talking literally here (and he made it clear he wasn't) he'd also have to be a door, a vine, and a stream. Why don't we just call him a "transformer" and make him into whatever we wish?

I'm not coming from a denomination's "version" of the bible. I can tell you which verses a particular group teaches and reteaches ignoring anything that would contradict their dogma because I've been in so many of them. I also know that every single group out there has "answers to objections" so they cover themselves.

Just like "location, location, location is the mantra for those dealing in Real Estate.....context, context, context is the mantra for anyone studying biblical theology.



she's been taught real well by the CC and is very well equipped with their commentaries and DR. She's a very good Catholic. I admire her dedication. I like that. It doesn't match with the context or the rest of scripture...but it sounds good doesn't it? That's how it works.

So you decide. Is it literal? Or is it not? What do you think Baker? Are you Catholic?

And she couldn't say the same thing about you? Your point has always been the 'duh' point, that it would just make sense that Christ wasn't literally a door. Yet, here we are with someone saying the Christ was literally food.

She sees the same context that you do. Again, it doesn't seem to be so easily translatable, because here we have two people just as devoted to the truth of the text, and yet we have two different opinions.



And she could say that you've been taught real well by your religious doctrine. You didn't come up with it on your own.



I don't agree with either of you that often. Yet for some reason I don't know my bible, or I haven't read it with an open heart, or whatever.

What are you just contrary or is it just against me? Did you not notice that she listed all the verses in John but skipped one and I called her back on that very important one? It's not me that's skipping scripture and you know that. I know you know that. I know you're smart and I know you like to play dumb on occasion just to get my goat.



Well your comment says you're an equal opportunity basher but I see you as only bashing me....maybe I'm missing something? You could at least tell me when you DO agree even if it's not often. I try to do that with you don't I?

Well then, open your heart and get reading then. What's stopping you?

She doesn't "skip" that scripture, she just interprets it as not applying to the situation.



LOL, no, I don't bash Lula, heavens, who'd think that...

see, I told ya so.

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.