Posted on 11/30/2008 8:21:58 PM PST by Alex Murphy
One need not be an “expert” to invoke the law of identity.
I guess I phrased it poorly. If you know the history, and have to depend upon another for his understanding of it, you actually don't really know the history. Simple, isn't it?
My interpretation is as Jesus spoke. John 14 is a dialog between Jesus and his disciples regarding what happens after He is no longer with them here on earth. Jesus assures them that when needed or asked for by those who believe God will send an Advocate;
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you"
Hmmm...whose definition? Or are you "interpreting" the definitions? LOL.
Actually, both of those terms are used interchangably, and I can show you in verses of the Bible a few cases where it is done. Of course, I suppose you will say I'm "interpreting" those verses. So, after you re-check the definitions maybe you'll get back to me with the differences.
The definition of words in the english language are no more a matter of “interpretation” than mathematical equations.
They are either correct, or they are not.
One has a right to their own opinion; one has no right to their own facts.
"The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you"
You are correct...but it is not your "interpretation", it is your understanding of the verse and passage (which is the same as I understand it).
I say this because what Jesus promised was given strictly to the Apostles. In this respect, your explanation (what you call your interpretation?) is a comment on what Jesus said. Can you understand that?
They are either correct, or they are not.
There you go again with that long term "interpretation". You should have used the English term "understanding" instead. And yes, they are one or the other.
I go with the definitions found in a first century Greek lexicon. That contains the meanings of the terms found in the Bible and do not contain the added definitions accumulated over the centuries since the Bible was written.
One has a right to their own opinion; one has no right to their own facts.
I would disagree with the last part of your statement. Facts are facts, and they belong to no one individual. If a fact is proven wrong, then it is no longer a fact.
God did not give special privilege to the Apostles, only special burdens. I know it is contemporarily popular to play theological "gotcha" by citing this disclaimer, but that contradicts what else is said slightly further on in John:
John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him."
The modern conceit of treating the word “understanding” as a subjective evaluation is just that...a modern conceit.
One either understands, or one does not.
I think you should re-read what I wrote about ones own facts. I wrote the opposite of what you seem to think I wrote.
John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him."
Why not add John 14:22 to what you are insinuating? Or does that throw a monkey-wrench into it? A verse out of context is a pretext of what's not there.
Understanding is subjective. No getting around that. LOL
One either understands, or one does not.
This is the first time you have used the term "understands". Your original says: "One has a right to their own opinion; one has no right to their own facts.
So, how can you say: "I think you should re-read what I wrote about ones own facts. I wrote the opposite of what you seem to think I wrote."? Then perhaps you should re-phrase it, don't you think?
Why stop there? Why not add John 14:23 (unless,of course it, represents a monkey wrench to your point)?
23- Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him".
Its kind of hard to interpret understand the word "anyone" and being limited or restricted to the Apostles, isn't it?
No, I don’t think rephrasing is necessary. I think more attentive reading will suffice.
I smell the stink of higher criticism.
John 8:15
"I smell the stink of higher criticism."
John 8:15
I have no idea what that means.
My intention was not to get into an argument with you but to let literalist Catholics papertyger and wideawake answer you instead.
I do not understand this sick need of anti-literalists to claim entire religions when those religions are divided. There may not be many Catholic literalists, but they exist. And you know this. So why the need to make an obviously false claim that "Catholics" (implying all Catholics) are not literalists. Have you ever heard of Living Tradition magazine? The Kolbe Center? The Daylight Origins Society? Bob Sungenis? Gary Metatics(sp?)? While admittedly a distinct minority, they are Catholics and they are literalists.
I know of no literalist who would make the implied claim that all Catholics/Protestants/Jews are literalists. Yet anti-literalists insist on making the opposing claim. And the claim is false on its face.
Are anti-literalists hoping by inflating the numbers to intimidate literalists? Why do that instead of debate the issues?
Okay, if you can't put your meanings into words that are understandable, there is not sense communicating with you.
John 8:15
You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
"I do not understand this sick need of anti-literalists to claim entire religions when those religions are divided."
Your lack of understanding is not limited to the above. You lack an understanding of the hierarchy of the Church. In spite of any private or public dissension or dialog the Church's position is that of the Holy See and the Papal edicts are not entirely literalist. Those that are in agreement are in communion with the body of the Church, those that are not in agreement are not wholly Catholic. If you, as a non-Catholic find comfort an solace in literalism, I will not judge you. It is, however, disingenuous for one to claim to be Catholic and be in open dissension with the Church on issues whether it is literalism or voting for an abortionist.
Nope, no monkey wrench in my understanding :-)
Its kind of hard to interpret understand the word "anyone" and being limited or restricted to the Apostles, isn't it?
If I'm speaking to a group of 12 men, and use the word anyone to them, it could mean anyone of the 12. Anyway, John records Jesus private words to the Apostles starting in Jn. 13:1 all the way through Jn. 16:33. What we have been quoting are just a few of the verses in the greater context of this conversation between Jesus and his Apostles. That should be clear to anyone reading them, unless, of course, one has an axe to grind.
However, it is a given, because of other places in the scriptures, that Jesus also said that "anyone who loves him and obeys his teachings" he will accept. But to take this verse and use it universally when spoken strictly to a select group is to take it out of context. If one wants to use that phrase, there are other verses saying the same thing that can be used in context. Enough said. I think we have milked enough confusion out of Jesus private conversation with his Apostles. :-)
So you're saying that those Catholics who are literalists are CINO's in the same sense as those who support abortion?
Wideawake? Papertyger?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.