"Living word of God," where in Bible?

[PJM]

=rcjones;6512747]Well you did better at interpreting the text than at interpreting my post.

You should have stuck with (1)

Modernists do not believe in sensus plenior. They say there is only one meaning of scripture which is the literal-historical-grammatical interpretation.

The rules themselves are discerned from scripture using the same method that you are using.

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)

1. Since man shall live “…by every word”, a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)

1. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)

1. Since God’s word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us in awe)

1. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t a good shadow. (This keeps us focused)

1. And since we are to “let everyman be a liar and God be true”, outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)

Those who have attempted typology and who have not been bound by the rules have interpretations that are inconsistent and are the source for suspicion concerning typology, which often warrant the term ‘free-for-all’.

And these are the methods of the Apostles and Christ, NOT of modern theologians.

Extremely well done. Thank you.

***You might consider adding a numer eleven? If yor understanding does not match that of the CC, change it; your wrong.

God’s continued Blessings.***

 

[rcjones]

Interesting. I think you are on to something. Why not examine your theory one premise at a time and see where any weak points might be strengthened? If you are willing, we can start with (1):

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)

As you said, we should consider the immediate context of the passage to get a proper understanding of its meaning. So let’s begin there.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5)

My first impression is that you are indeed right! It’s likely impossible to have a proper understanding of all that the Bible teaches. My second impression is that this is not what Christ is teaching in the passage you cited (although I’m sure He teaches it elsewhere). I’m thinking when He speaks of jots and tittles, He is speaking of obeying every detail of the moral precepts of the Old Testament rather than understanding every detail of the moral precepts of the Old Testament. Of course, who can obey what he does not understand?

Well you are certainly welcome to examine it however you wish. I am impressed with your attempts to practice the Socratic methods, however I am not persuaded that the method itself has much value.

The heart of the Socratic method is the use of the dilemma in a syllogism. A dilemma is the statement of two propositions which negate each other such that only one can be true.

A false dilemma is the statement of two propositions as a dilemma, when other propositions have not been falsified. To prove a dilemmas is really a false dilemma, one only needs to produce a single third proposition which has not been falsified.

To have confidence that a dilemma is not a false dilemma, one must consider all the propositions that might possibly exist. Since one cannot know what one does not know he doesn’t know, one cannot be sure that he is aware of all possible propositions.

Hence it is impossible to have confidence that any stated dilemma is not a false dilemma, and this makes the Socratic method unusable for discerning truth, or even determining validity of reason.

A good example is found here:

“Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (Euthyphro 10 a)

This dilemma is a false dilemma. It is false because it does not consider the proposition that perhaps there are no gods (which act capriciously) and that there is one God who is the measure of good, not by his capricious likes and dislikes, but by His nature.

Failure to even acknowledge this possibility shows that Socrates was not able to know that he didn’t know it. Had he known it, his penchant for nit-picky pursuit of truth would have explored it.

Socrates is a symbol of the futility of man-made logic’s ability to discover or discern truth. Truth is revealed. Christ said I AM the way, the truth and the life.

In Apology 21a, Socrates concludes that he is the wisest since he is aware of his own ignorance. Were this true he would not have submitted to death based on reasoning dependent on a false dilemma.

The false dilemma concerns his second premise:

"But it is always wrong to disobey the state. "

His first arguement shows his own inconsistency. It was based on the obligation of a child to obey his parents. The problem was that he previously challenged the moral authority of the state, and did not use those conclusions in his reasoning here.

His second arguement was based on the nature of the contract or agreement to live in a state. In this arguement he completely ignores discussion about the two-way nature of such an agreement, and what our obligation is when the state has broken it’s part. Poor fool of fools. By his own reasoning method we can conclude that Socrates was just a trouble maker and his death was just.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

But the practice of his methods does have some advantage for disciplining the mind, and you are fun to watch

 

[spockrates]

Well you are certainly welcome to examine it however you wish. I am impressed with your attempts to practice the Socratic methods, however I am not persuaded that the method itself has much value.

The heart of the Socratic method is the use of the dilemma in a syllogism. A dilemma is the statement of two propositions which negate each other such that only one can be true.

A false dilemma is the statement of two propositions as a dilemma, when other propositions have not been falsified. To prove a dilemmas is really a false dilemma, one only needs to produce a single third proposition which has not been falsified.

To have confidence that a dilemma is not a false dilemma, one must consider all the propositions that might possibly exist. Since one cannot know what one does not know he doesn’t know, one cannot be sure that he is aware of all possible propositions.

Hence it is impossible to have confidence that any stated dilemma is not a false dilemma, and this makes the Socratic method unusable for discerning truth, or even determining validity of reason.

A good example is found here:

“Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (Euthyphro 10 a)

This dilemma is a false dilemma. It is false because it does not consider the proposition that perhaps there are no gods (which act capriciously) and that there is one God who is the measure of good, not by his capricious likes and dislikes, but by His nature.

Failure to even acknowledge this possibility shows that Socrates was not able to know that he didn’t know it. Had he known it, his penchant for nit-picky pursuit of truth would have explored it.

Socrates is a symbol of the futility of man-made logic’s ability to discover or discern truth. Truth is revealed. Christ said I AM the way, the truth and the life.

In Apology 21a, Socrates concludes that he is the wisest since he is aware of his own ignorance. Were this true he would not have submitted to death based on reasoning dependent on a false dilemma.

The false dilemma concerns his second premise:

"But it is always wrong to disobey the state. "

His first arguement shows his own inconsistency. It was based on the obligation of a child to obey his parents. The problem was that he previously challenged the moral authority of the state, and did not use those conclusions in his reasoning here.

His second arguement was based on the nature of the contract or agreement to live in a state. In this arguement he completely ignores discussion about the two-way nature of such an agreement, and what our obligation is when the state has broken it’s part. Poor fool of fools. By his own reasoning method we can conclude that Socrates was just a trouble maker and his death was just.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

But the practice of his methods does have some advantage for disciplining the mind, and you are fun to watch

Well, you’ve certainly taken off the dainty white glove and slapped my brutish cheek! Let’s see, what accusation against my beloved Father of Philosophy should we duel over first? Pistols of rapiers? I’ll let you choose.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/archives/rag/image/duel.jpg

 

[spockrates]

Pardon me, sir; I meant to ask, “Pistols or rapiers?”

 

[rcjones]

Pardon me, sir; I meant to ask, “Pistols or rapiers?”

I have returned my sword to my side…a lessor man would have used a scabbard.

 

[spockrates]

I have returned my sword to my side…a lessor man would have used a scabbard.

Then pistols it is, then! Shall we die at dawn, sir?



All kidding aside (though please forgive me if I cannot help using the dueling metaphor some more!) I’m a Missourian–though I’ve never been there. I’d like you to show me, by way of example, how Socrates method, which I so crudely use, is skewed. I shall suggest a dilemma, and you shall explain how it is a false one and no dilemma at all. Are you game?

 

[rcjones]

I believe that my example was sufficient to demonstrate the general case. Since you cannot know what you do not know you do not know, you cannot know that any proposed dilemma is not false. Simply because your opponent may also know know what you do not know you do not know, does not give security in the result.

Until this problem of universal ignorance can be overcome, I prefer to spend my time in the Word of Truth rather than play the game of Ignorance.

But thanks for the invite.

 

[spockrates]

I believe that my example was sufficient to demonstrate the general case. Since you cannot know what you do not know you do not know, you cannot know that any proposed dilemma is not false. Simply because your opponent may also know know what you do not know you do not know, does not give security in the result.

Until this problem of universal ignorance can be overcome, I prefer to spend my time in the Word of Truth rather than play the game of Ignorance.

But thanks for the invite.

You are welcome. Let me know if you want to continue the discussion and what you want to discuss.

 

[NHInsider]

Without the rules it is free-for-all.

Oh and these are the rules that constrain the meaning. The methods from the first century are the childish rules of riddle and word play.

I am trying to teach the methods here:

sensusplenior.net/?page_id=2

Wait - are you suggesting that St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s typologies are “childish rules of riddle and word play?”

 

[rcjones]

Wait - are you suggesting that St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s typologies are “childish rules of riddle and word play?”

Yes. The wisdom of God is found in the simple things which are scoffed at by those thinking themselves wise.

Elohim has a pun meaning “the Not Dark”. The scholar will scoff at the word play, but a child will recognize Jesus, the Light of the world.

St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s typologies are derived from such"childish rules of riddle and word play".