Understanding the Written Word of God

[ChristianCatholic]

The question of how to understand the Bible is difficult to answer. The most common - and erroneous - way to understand the Sacred Scriptures is from a purely intellectual point of view. Modern readers judge and interpret the Sacred Scriptures based on their own modern opinions and sometimes conjure up monstrous interpretations of the mysteries of the Sacred texts - instead of illuminating our understanding, these modern opinions and commentaries obscure the message.

The Sacred Scriptures are so profound that trying to understand them is like stretching out to touch the heavens or the depths of the ocean. The farther one goes, the farther and more obscure the aimed destination becomes. Each time we read the Scriptures, a new meaning comes to us. Many things related in them are so simple that even the unlearned can delight in their directness, yet they are at the same time so profound that even the learned never cease to be nourished by its deep mysteries.

In order to understand the Sacred Scriptures, one should read the commentaries of the Saints and of the Church. The Great Commentary of Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, the commentary of Fr. Haydock, the Catena Aurea of St. Thomas Aquinas, and a vast collection of works from the Church Fathers (for example, St. John Chrysostom) should be places to start.

[odhiambo]

The question of how to understand the Bible is difficult to answer. The most common - and erroneous - way to understand the Sacred Scriptures is from a purely intellectual point of view. Modern readers judge and interpret the Sacred Scriptures based on their own modern opinions and sometimes conjure up monstrous interpretations of the mysteries of the Sacred texts - instead of illuminating our understanding, these modern opinions and commentaries obscure the message.

The Sacred Scriptures are so profound that trying to understand them is like stretching out to touch the heavens or the depths of the ocean. The farther one goes, the farther and more obscure the aimed destination becomes. Each time we read the Scriptures, a new meaning comes to us. Many things related in them are so simple that even the unlearned can delight in their directness, yet they are at the same time so profound that even the learned never cease to be nourished by its deep mysteries.

In order to understand the Sacred Scriptures, one should read the commentaries of the Saints and of the Church. The Great Commentary of Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, the commentary of Fr. Haydock, the Catena Aurea of St. Thomas Aquinas, and a vast collection of works from the Church Fathers (for example, St. John Chrysostom) should be places to start.

Thank you for your comment ChristianCatholic.

[odhiambo]

"But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,

 Blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram by the most high God, who created heaven and earth.

 And blessed be the most high God, by whose protection the enemies are in thy hands. And he gace him the tithes of all."
Genesis 14: 18-20
Who was this King who who blessed Abram with bread and wine?

[George]

A mysterious figure for sure. Melchizedek is mentioned in Gen. 14:18-20 psalm 110:4  Heb. 6: 20 Heb. 7:1-3 Heb. 7:15-17

All I could find is his name means "Righteous King", king of Salem means "King of Peace"

He supposedly is according to my bible commentary "A type of Christ representing a priesthood that is unique and eternal"
"A priest of the God of Israel".

[odhiambo]

A mysterious figure for sure. Melchizedek is mentioned in Gen. 14:18-20 psalm 110:4  Heb. 6: 20 Heb. 7:1-3 Heb. 7:15-17

All I could find is his name means "Righteous King", king of Salem means "King of Peace"

He supposedly is according to my bible commentary "A type of Christ representing a priesthood that is unique and eternal"
"A priest of the God of Israel".
[/quot

Hi George!
I asked because the more I delved into it the more it seems that he was not just a " type" of Christ but the Lord Himself. Described as the King of Peace and Righteousness! Surely there is only one that is worthy of such a description? All this years, this bit of Scipture never registered untill now! Amazing!
Thanks George.

[George]

I find the bread and wine reference remarkable, the fact he was mentioned in Psalm 110 makes it even more thought provoking, I am leaning in the same direction you are.

[odhiambo]

What did Jesus mean by "scandalized" when He said in  Matthew 26:31,
"All you shall be scandalized in me this night...."?

[Poche]

What did Jesus mean by "scandalized" when He said in  Matthew 26:31,
"All you shall be scandalized in me this night...."?

It menat all of you will be embarrrassed and afraid to be associated with me.

[odhiambo]

Following is last Sunday Gospel Reading.

Gospel Mt 20:1-16a

Jesus told his disciples this parable:
“The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner
who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage,
he sent them into his vineyard.
Going out about nine o’clock,
the landowner saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard,
and I will give you what is just.’
So they went off.
And he went out again around noon,
and around three o’clock, and did likewise.
Going out about five o’clock,
the landowner found others standing around, and said to them,
‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’
They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’
He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’
When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman,
‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay,
beginning with the last and ending with the first.’
When those who had started about five o’clock came,
each received the usual daily wage.
So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more,
but each of them also got the usual wage.
And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying,
‘These last ones worked only one hour,
and you have made them equal to us,
who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’
He said to one of them in reply,
‘My friend, I am not cheating you.
Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
Take what is yours and go.
What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?
Are you envious because I am generous?’
Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Who did Jesus mean by the "First and Last"?
I read an interesting reflection on this text and wondered whether others think the same.

[Shin]

Scandal is the term for a specific sin. The 'sin of scandal'. St. Thomas has an article on it.

Normally I simply think of it as the sin of giving bad example to others. By deeds or words, by omission, or any of the 9 ways of being an accessory to sin.

'As Jerome observes the Greek skandalon may be rendered offense, downfall, or a stumbling against something. For when a body, while moving along a path, meets with an obstacle, it may happen to stumble against it, and be disposed to fall down: such an obstacle is a skandalon.

In like manner, while going along the spiritual way, a man may be disposed to a spiritual downfall by another's word or deed, in so far, to wit, as one man by his injunction, inducement or example, moves another to sin; and this is scandal properly so called.

Now nothing by its very nature disposes a man to spiritual downfall, except that which has some lack of rectitude, since what is perfectly right, secures man against a fall, instead of conducing to his downfall. Scandal is, therefore, fittingly defined as "something less rightly done or said, that occasions another's spiritual downfall."'

St. Thomas Aquinas


And there is also the 'Scandal of the Cross'. That the world considers the cross a bad example than a good one, because they do not understand it, hate suffering, and et cetera.

I think there are many people who do not consider the sin of scandal when they communicate with others, and the perfection they are called to in their words, if they did, they would instead remain silent rather than defending various evil actions, and so thereby defending the harm given to others.

The bad scandal:

'Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.'

Matthew 16:23

The good scandal:

'As it is written: Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock of scandal; and whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded.'

Romans 9:33

An example of the sin of scandal would be a woman wearing an immodest dress. The woman would be guilty of the sin of scandal in regards to all the other women whom she influences by her bad example of clothing. She would also be guilty of all the sins she provoked in the men who saw her.

Another example would be a man who habitually excuses a politician who aborts babies. The politician is seeing to it that the little ones are killed, but the man makes various specious excuses for this mentality, excuses which have no real existence or appropriate use but are simply brought forth because the politician is of the same party and the man feels duty bound to defend anyone of the same political party. This would apply in less direct circumstances too, i.e., the politician who is paving the way for the abortion of babies without explicitly embracing abortion yet, which goes to show how a discerning eye is necessary in many matters and yet people feel free to speak and comment on any topic even those which they are not sufficient for.

Some people are ever ready to defend scandalous prelates, believing themselves duty bound to do so, when in fact, Our Lord has said, 'Woe to the world because of scandals' and 'Anyone who shall scandalize one of these little ones. . .'

And Pope Pius XII says, 'they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.'

[odhiambo]

It seems that many people may not actually realize they are being scandalous; for instance, the woman weaning a dress that is revealing. To those who are not spiritually attune, they are simply being fashionable, smart. I see it a lot round town.
As full awareness and acceptance is necessary for sin to occur, I wonder if we can still call it that.

[odhiambo]

Another example is nudity in the saunas. I understand that in Germany, this is the norm
I was shocked when I learnt that even priests use such facilities.

[odhiambo]

Romans 3:23
"all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God"
In view of the above, how do I defend our belief that Our Lady never sinned?
The thread is from another forum. I want to post a reply and I have a general idea but stating it clearly and convincingly is the problem.
Thanks.

[whiterockdove]

Hello Odhiambo

[Shin]

When people are shameless you still speak of sin as sin, it's a very bad sign for souls!


I am trying to recall a response to incorrect understandings of Romans 3:23 I heard once that was very nicely put, I know some responses to it but it was quite fine if I can just recall the details.

[odhiambo]

Hello Odhiambo

Hi whiterockdove