J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Maybe a thread should be started on Catholic and Protestant interpretations / exegesis on John 3:16?
- Status
M
mschoir01
Guest
I quote: “…each was partly in the right,
'though all of them were wrong…”
J
JimG
Guest
I didn’t vote, because the question seemed meaningless. Restating the text doesn’t really allow us to tell what Wilson’s interpretation of the text was. Objective truth is what is out there in reality. Subjective truth is what is in our minds that corresponds accurately to reality. Based on the information you gave, I can’t get inside Wilson’s mind to see if his concepts correspond with reality.
You did say that Wilson had no knowledge of Christ or Christianity. Now, even such a smart guy as Aristotle, if confronted with the text in question, might not be able to make any sense of it, without a prior understanding of Christianity. If the gospel had been first preached to him, he would have a basis of understanding. Coming across an isolated text, I doubt it.
J
john_ennis
Guest
I’m glad he didn’t open to the verse that says, “Hate your father.”
He might have an intuition that God is his father, then apply the verse to Him.
Boy! Thank heaven for context, and for the entire Word (Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium).
Peace.
John
He might have an intuition that God is his father, then apply the verse to Him.
Boy! Thank heaven for context, and for the entire Word (Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium).
Peace.
John
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Don’t you find it funny that this thread has has almost 500 views, over 80 posts and yet only 8 people voted. 
The poll is too ambiguous.
The poll is too ambiguous.
M
mschoir01
Guest
john ennis:
Now this gets an AMEN!
A
Angainor
Guest
He didn’t say “I don’t know”. He made and interpretation. I told you what that interpretation was.
A
Angainor
Guest
Well yes, obviously. I wouldn’t expect an understanding of John 3:16 to grant him omniscience.
S
Scout
Guest
I didn’t read through the entire thread, so I don’t know if someone else already brought this up, but I think Wilson probably would interpret John 3:16 as meaning that if he believes in God and God’s son, then he’s going to live forever, probably stuck on that cursed island for all eternity. This probably is not going to give Wilson much comfort, so instead of believing in either God or His Son, he’ll use the paper for fire or for “cleaning”.
Scout :tiphat:
Scout :tiphat:
A
Angainor
Guest
He does have a basis for understanding what the author intended to convey, reading comprehension. That is how authors convey information, and the reader receives the information the author intended to convey.
It would be strange indeed if Wilson had the words in his mind with no meaning attached to them.
Please assume that Wilson has the words in his mind with the meaning of of those words attached to them.
A
Angainor
Guest
I have never heard Subjective Truth described this way. I don’t think I agree. If an idea that is in our minds corresponds accurately to reality, I would not call that idea “Subjective Truth”. I would call that idea an “accurate understanding of Objective Truth”.
A
Angainor
Guest
Assume Wilson accomplished the “big if” and understands the meanings behind the words correctly.
In other words, Wilson has a correct understanding of the Objective Truth of the words of the verse.
D
DeFide
Guest
The meaning? That’s the problem. Words and phrases have many different meanings. Context also changes meanings.
For example, take the very simple sentence:
I never said you stole money.
Got it? Which meaning, though?:
I never said you stole money. (Bob did)
I never said you stole money. (I thought it. I wrote it.)
I never said you stole money. (I said Joe did)
I never said you stole money. (I said you burned it)
I never said you stole money. (I said you stole my pig)
J
JimG
Guest
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Even though you say that the above is Wilson’s “interpretation” of the verse, I still can’t answer the question. I’ve already used the example of Aristotle, who likewise is unfamiliar with Christ or Christianity. So even though Wilson understands, or thinks he understands, the individual words, some questions remain:
What meaning does he attach to “God?”
What meaning does he attach to “only begotten Son?”
What, Wilson wonders, does it mean to speak of God having a Son or a begotten Son?
What does it mean to “believe in Him?” Does it mean an intellectual assent? An acceptance of him? What if Wilson merely believes that He exists, based upon the lone text that he has discovered? Is that enough?
What does “shall not perish” mean to Wilson? Does he think that it refers to physical death? Does he have a concept of heaven or hell?
And finally, what, in Wilson’s mind, is the meaning of “eternal life?” Remaining forever alive on the island, getting older and older but never dying? Or something else? Does Wilson have a concept of the soul and its immortality?
I think you have must have some larger question in mind, but I don’t know what it is.
Even though you say that the above is Wilson’s “interpretation” of the verse, I still can’t answer the question. I’ve already used the example of Aristotle, who likewise is unfamiliar with Christ or Christianity. So even though Wilson understands, or thinks he understands, the individual words, some questions remain:
What meaning does he attach to “God?”
What meaning does he attach to “only begotten Son?”
What, Wilson wonders, does it mean to speak of God having a Son or a begotten Son?
What does it mean to “believe in Him?” Does it mean an intellectual assent? An acceptance of him? What if Wilson merely believes that He exists, based upon the lone text that he has discovered? Is that enough?
What does “shall not perish” mean to Wilson? Does he think that it refers to physical death? Does he have a concept of heaven or hell?
And finally, what, in Wilson’s mind, is the meaning of “eternal life?” Remaining forever alive on the island, getting older and older but never dying? Or something else? Does Wilson have a concept of the soul and its immortality?
I think you have must have some larger question in mind, but I don’t know what it is.
A
Angainor
Guest
DeFide said:
Excellent!
I really like this example.If you told me those six words and I understood those six words.
My interpretation of your words–namely I never said you stole money–is a true interpretation. Just because there is more to the story does not make my interpretation of your words any less true.
All kinds of realities can co-exist with my strict understaning of the idea you have communicated to me. I could immediatly follow up with you by asking questions to give me a more complete picture of reality. In the meantime, my understanding of reality–as incomplete as it is–is true, the rest I simply have no knowledge of.
M
mschoir01
Guest
All kinds of realities can co-exist with my strict understaning of the idea you have communicated to me. I could immediatly follow up with you by asking questions to give me a more complete picture of reality. In the meantime, my understanding of reality–as incomplete as it is–is true, the rest I simply have no knowledge of.
Now, here is progress! The beginning of truth. (Insert trumpet voluntary here.) :clapping:
Now, here is progress! The beginning of truth. (Insert trumpet voluntary here.) :clapping:
A
Angainor
Guest
:tiphat:Angainor:
Now, here is progress! The beginning of truth. (Insert trumpet voluntary here.) :clapping:
Yes, if I understand what John was communicating to me in John 3:16 this is real progress to the beginning of truth.
It is not the fullness of truth, there are still all kinds of theoretical realities (some true, some false) that can co-exist with my strict understanding of the words John has communicated to me: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
But it is a start. It narrows down my understanding of what reality is. There is more work to do to further narrow down my understanding.
A
Angainor
Guest
Yes, there are all sorts of [post=1421727]theoretical realities[/post] that it is possible to fit into the text John 3:16. John 3:16 does not, in itself, rule out the possibility that “eternal life” means eternal life on that island (it does not rule it in either).
If you asked Wilson if “eternal life” meant eternal life on the island, he would have to say “I don’t know.” This does not mean he has a false comprehension of John 3:16, it just means that John 3:16 doesn’t answer that particuar question.
D
DeFide
Guest
Repeating a sentence is not an interpretation. If I quoted you something in Chinese, you quoting back the sounds is not an interpretation. It would be meaningless to you.Excellent!
If you told me those six words and I understood those six words.
My interpretation of your words–namely I never said you stole money–is a true interpretation. Just because there is more to the story does not make my interpretation of your words any less true.
All kinds of realities can co-exist with my strict understaning of the idea you have communicated to me. I could immediatly follow up with you by asking questions to give me a more complete picture of reality. In the meantime, my understanding of reality–as incomplete as it is–is true, the rest I simply have no knowledge of.
Your interpretation of any text is the meaning you attach to it.
Poor Wilson, he is absolutely wrong.
The proper interpretation of that verse is not “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
The proper interpretation is this:
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
- Status