You are right, these are a lot better than the former conversations. I believe it has to do with your cartoons inspiring deep thoughts... :^| That's me contemplating your "wench v. wrench" illustration. Thanks.
I will make only a small contribution to your comments. Much of what you described is principally translation. Hermeneutics, however, is primarily interested in understanding what the writer/speaker is intending to communicate, vs the movement between two languages. We all believe the Greek/Hebrew translators are capable individuals (similar to the UN folks on headphones). We have the words right. Hermeneutics seeks to answer the question, "So what did the speaker/writer mean by that series of words/remarks?"
For example, when Jesus was walking with the two men to Emaus, He "dihermeneuticized the Scriptures" beginning with Moses (Torah) to the Prophets (end of OT) that He was woven throughout the story. Thus, whether "John went downtown" or "John went uptown", hermeneutics focuses on why John departed the area and how that contributes to Jesus being the Rescuer. But, hermeneutics is often dismissed as obvious or the domain of higher human authority.
If hermeneutics are obvious, why did Jesus need to open up the Scriptures to the men? If it is the domain of higher human authority, how does one avoid the need to understand what THAT authority finally claims the Book says? For example, if the RCC claims that it can control what Matt. 16 is about, how does one know they have correctly understood what the RCC actually says it meant? At some point the individual must say, "This is what I think the authority said is meant". Such a claim is a very small distance from "This is what the Scriptures mean directly", and thus both have taken on a "personal interpretation". That is, wherever one believes the hermeneutical train departs the station, its last stop is the individual mind.
Unless one believes the RCC inhabits the individual mind, everyone has a "private interpretation" defined as "what I finally believe this/that is getting at." and for this reason, the "personal interpretation" argument seems weak/disingenuous.
However, I understand you believe the first station of the train belongs to Rome.
"It is the teaching authority that Jesus left on Earth to point the way to Him. That is all."
I respect your opinion, although I ask you to consider anew whether it is actually taught by the Book. I cannot find it. But, we will stand and wait to see which view is correct...eventually, it will be apparent. Either way, I believe Jesus has captured your heart.
And, tomorrow we may have a new President and hopefully a few more years for the Gospel to move through the world.
I love the absurdity of cartoons such as Herman. It illustrates the absurdity of human perception and opinion in a very illustrative fashion.
Much of what you described is principally translation. Hermeneutics, however, is primarily interested in understanding what the writer/speaker is intending to communicate, vs the movement between two languages. We all believe the Greek/Hebrew translators are capable individuals (similar to the UN folks on headphones). We have the words right. Hermeneutics seeks to answer the question, "So what did the speaker/writer mean by that series of words/remarks?"
Translation is of utmost importance here. If you start with a faulty translation, you will inevitably end up with faulty conclusions. For instance, we know that St. Jerome's Vulgate was faulty and needed to be replaced, not his fault - he did the best he could at the time. We know that Martin Luther's Bible deliberately included faith 'alone'. We know that the King James Bible was politically influenced by the state religion of England. We know that the 'modern' and 'politically correct' versions of the Bible (including the gender neutral versions) are absolute crap and mislead those who would be Christian.
If hermeneutics are obvious, why did Jesus need to open up the Scriptures to the men? If it is the domain of higher human authority, how does one avoid the need to understand what THAT authority finally claims the Book says? For example, if the RCC claims that it can control what Matt. 16 is about, how does one know they have correctly understood what the RCC actually says it meant? At some point the individual must say, "This is what I think the authority said is meant". Such a claim is a very small distance from "This is what the Scriptures mean directly", and thus both have taken on a "personal interpretation". That is, wherever one believes the hermeneutical train departs the station, its last stop is the individual mind.
But I will still come back to the exhortations by the New Testament writers, especially St. Paul, that the interpretation of the Faith is from the Church, not the individual.
Unless one believes the RCC inhabits the individual mind, everyone has a "private interpretation" defined as "what I finally believe this/that is getting at." and for this reason, the "personal interpretation" argument seems weak/disingenuous.
I understand the Church to indicate that one's beliefs must align to the Church's interpretation. There is of course, latitude on many things, but the core beliefs of the Church are very well outlined in the Catechism.
I respect your opinion, although I ask you to consider anew whether it is actually taught by the Book. I cannot find it. But, we will stand and wait to see which view is correct...eventually, it will be apparent. Either way, I believe Jesus has captured your heart.
As I believe of you. Thank you. I do, however, believe that it is repeatedly taught by the Book - by Jesus and by the Apostles and NT writers.
I will serve up Matthew 28:18-20, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, Acts 2:42, 1 Corinthians 4:18 et al as evidence.
And, tomorrow we may have a new President and hopefully a few more years for the Gospel to move through the world.
The Gospel will survive even such as Barack Obama. Suleiman the Great tried to crush Christian Europe and failed. It is in the face of adversity that Christian greatness has prevailed and gotten stronger. The re-election of the President does not set the cause of Christianity back; neither does it indicate its decline and eventual fall.
Jesus has told us what is to befall us and the world. Idiots (creatures of Him) will not foil Him.