Subjective or Objective Truth on a deserted island

[vz71]

Then it is your contention that John 3:16 can stand as its own interpretation?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Angainor:

Stop calling me a liar.I do not “admit that a quote from scripture cannot serve as its own interpretation” Obviously.

My interpretation of John 11:35 is Jesus wept. By this I mean, “Jesus wept”. This is my interpretation as to what John was trying to communicate to me, by which, it is my understanding, that Jesus wept. That happens to match the quote from scripture.

Try that in a college classroom. Go write a paper where you write as your own words something that just happens to, but not by intention, match exactly, word for word, something C.S Lewis wrote. See what the professor says about that.

 

[Angainor]

Lazerlike42:

Angainor:

The point of the thread is that an interpretation that expresses the same idea as the text of scripture is true.

Of course it is,

This is the only point I was trying to get across, really. This whole time.

but,

the thing is that what any given text of Scripture says is what the interpretation is attempting to convey. You cannot simply repeat the words.

Why can’t I? What better way to express the same idea as the text of scripture than the text of scripture?

 

[Angainor]

Lazerlike42:

But, if you really want to just take the words for what they are, shouldn’t you agree with my interpretation of “this is my body?”

Yup.
Luther's Large Chatechism:

**8] **Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?
**

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. **9] **And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

**10] **It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element.

 

[vz71]

Angainor:

TWhat better way to express the same idea as the text of scripture than the text of scripture?

But that is NOT the idea you have been trying to convey.
You have been trying to convey what Wilson thinks.

People do not think in nice discreet biblical verse, people think in ideas and logic. And that is where interpretation lies.

You would have us believe that interpretation and verse are the same in some instances (AS IN THE FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD), then when it no longer suits your purpose, you claim that interpretation is not the same as verse:

              *Let me admit it a third time. An interpretation of a scripture is different thing than the translation of it.*.

That is an unreasonable at best. Deceptive at worst.

 

[vz71]

vz71:

Deceptive at worst.

Deceptive because you are trying to use both arguments on a single verse.

Either the verse is clear enough to not require further explanation (Jesus wept); or it does not.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Yup.

Luther’s view of the Eucharist does not hold that the bread literally is Christ’s body, only that Christ is present and received with the Eucharist.

But I don’t want to argue about that, so I will take a more clear verse:

“Truly truly I say to you, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in you.”

How does that “interpretation” square with Sola Fide?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Lazerlike42:

Luther’s view of the Eucharist does not hold that the bread literally is Christ’s body, only that Christ is present and received with the Eucharist.

Yeah, Luther’s view of consubstantiation is metaphysically impossible. He said that both bread *and * Christ’s Body are present and that wine *and * Christ’s Blood are present. Two substances cannot simultaneously be contained in one set of accidents. It just can’t be done. Plus, you don’t have the Eucharist without sacrifice…and you don’t have sacrifice without a valid priesthood. So considering that the Lutheran “church” lacks a priesthood, they don’t have the Real Presence of the Eucharist whether they believe in it or not.