T
- Status
S
StarFireKK
Guest
In any field (law, history, etc) that makes a practice of interpreting and evaluating documents there are processes and procedures. In law this is called the “Four Corners Doctrine.” You must consider the organization of the piece and you must consider how the rest of the document references your quote. That’s the first step of interpretation. Is the meaning of the language clear from the document itself? If yes, stop. If no, continue.Obviously the people who lived back then back then “interpreted” it otherwise. And as such they never bothered to make a written compilation of the events - after all, if the Kingdom of God will come in their lifetime, what is point? I have heard so many times that the “interpretation” must take into account the mindset of the people it is supposed to refer to. So, why is it neglected in this case? Because it is not convenient. The gospels were written decades after the alleged events took place, when it was “obvious” that there will be no coming of the Kingdom of God any time soon.
If the meaning of the language is not clear from the document itself, can the meaning be understood given other evidence? For example- other documents that refer to the first document, knowledge of the author, knowledge of the intended audience, etc. At this point, you can come up with two different, equally valid arguments for what the document means. That’s when you have to start weighing all the evidence.
But you never get to the second level of interpretation if the meaning is clear from the document. That’s why the mindset doesn’t matter in this case.
You are saying we should ignore the first level (and most commonly accepted level) of interpretation because you believe the author switched things around to make things “look good.” What evidence do you have that that is the case? Why shouldn’t we believe the author? Given the Oral Tradition at the time, does it really matter the gospels weren’t written immediately after the events?
In order to even get the the “mindset of the people at the time” you have to show me the language’s meaning isn’t clear from the document itself. Considering the Transfiguration immediately follows and some of the same language is used when describing the Transfiguration- you have your work cut out for you.
N
Nate13
Guest
Apparently you skipped my post. Go back and try again. The destruction of the temple within a generation of Jesus’ death is a microcosm of the destruction of the World at the end of time. The destruction of the temple ended the Old Covenant, which made way for the Kingdom of Heaven coming down among us and the New Covenant. Jesus is here and he is present in the Eucharist.Obviously the people who lived back then back then “interpreted” it otherwise. And as such they never bothered to make a written compilation of the events - after all, if the Kingdom of God will come in their lifetime, what is point? I have heard so many times that the “interpretation” must take into account the mindset of the people it is supposed to refer to. So, why is it neglected in this case? Because it is not convenient. The gospels were written decades after the alleged events took place, when it was “obvious” that there will be no coming of the Kingdom of God any time soon.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed. There is no Catholic here who ought to disagree with this statement.
But perhaps you are suffering from the misapprehension that we believe the pope to be impeccable rather than infallible?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I guess while you were looking you missed the post I wrote (the long one) in which I stated that I would not post in this thread again. But as you went to some trouble for me (and I admit I have been lurking) I will respond.
Your response makes no sense at all. You even have to base it on a supposed implication, and one which I never made. I specified one person only and in one context only. And in the next post to which you responded I stated that people can use reason.
I’m a Pepper, he’s a Pepper, she’s a Pepper, we’re a Pepper, wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper, too?
And a Wilkinson sword was there!
We make money the old fashioned way. We E A R N it.
Let Hertz put you in the driver’s seat!
We’re number 2. We try harder.
Curlers in your hair! Shame on you!
Ch-ch-ch-chia!
Four more days 'til Halloween! Halloween! Halloween! Four more days 'til Halloween! Silver Shamrock!
A little bit naughty but heavenly, with HeavenScent…
“He’s dead, Jim.”
I WANT TO BELIEVE.
There are some more slogans for you. Some are oldies but goodies and some are just plain awful. Now, as much as I would like to respond again I simply must stop for the reason I stated in my post in which I stated I would not post again in this thread.
Th-th-th-that’s all, Folks!
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
God can’t be a CEO or King here on Earth? Oy vey! Where do you get this stuff?Ooops, I’m not supposed to be posting here anymore. Sorry. I’m gone.
Oh, one more thing. God is the Head of the Catholic Church. That should have been obvious. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.
OK, one more. Two thousand years is less than a billionth of a blink of eternity. We have been in the end times since Jesus first appeared on earth.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Reason is useless if you can only use to come to Church approved conclusions.I guess while you were looking you missed the post I wrote (the long one) in which I stated that I would not post in this thread again. But as you went to some trouble for me (and I admit I have been lurking) I will respond.
Your response makes no sense at all. You even have to base it on a supposed implication, and one which I never made. I specified one person only and in one context only. And in the next post to which you responded I stated that people can use reason.
I’m a Pepper, he’s a Pepper, she’s a Pepper, we’re a Pepper, wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper, too?
And a Wilkinson sword was there!
We make money the old fashioned way. We E A R N it.
Let Hertz put you in the driver’s seat!
We’re number 2. We try harder.
Curlers in your hair! Shame on you!
Ch-ch-ch-chia!
Four more days 'til Halloween! Halloween! Halloween! Four more days 'til Halloween! Silver Shamrock!
A little bit naughty but heavenly, with HeavenScent…
“He’s dead, Jim.”
I WANT TO BELIEVE.
There are some more slogans for you. Some are oldies but goodies and some are just plain awful. Now, as much as I would like to respond again I simply must stop for the reason I stated in my post in which I stated I would not post again in this thread.
Th-th-th-that’s all, Folks!
Why waste the effort if they have already given you the answers
The Industrial Revolution never would have occurred if a significant segment of humanity had not abandoned that type thinking.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
If you don’t want to post then simply do not post.I guess while you were looking you missed the post I wrote (the long one) in which I stated that I would not post in this thread again. But as you went to some trouble for me (and I admit I have been lurking) I will respond.
Your response makes no sense at all. You even have to base it on a supposed implication, and one which I never made. I specified one person only and in one context only. And in the next post to which you responded I stated that people can use reason.
I’m a Pepper, he’s a Pepper, she’s a Pepper, we’re a Pepper, wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper, too?
And a Wilkinson sword was there!
We make money the old fashioned way. We E A R N it.
Let Hertz put you in the driver’s seat!
We’re number 2. We try harder.
Curlers in your hair! Shame on you!
Ch-ch-ch-chia!
Four more days 'til Halloween! Halloween! Halloween! Four more days 'til Halloween! Silver Shamrock!
A little bit naughty but heavenly, with HeavenScent…
“He’s dead, Jim.”
I WANT TO BELIEVE.
There are some more slogans for you. Some are oldies but goodies and some are just plain awful. ** Now, as much as I would like to respond again I simply must stop for the reason I stated in my post in which I stated I would not post again in this thread.**
Th-th-th-that’s all, Folks!
No one is making you (as far as I know).
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Historical precedent, common sense, etc.
Ooops, I’m not supposed to be posting here anymore. Sorry. I’m gone.
Oh, one more thing. God is the Head of the Catholic Church. That should have been obvious. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.
OK, one more. Two thousand years is less than a billionth of a blink of eternity. We have been in the end times since Jesus first appeared on earth.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Not so. If reason takes you to conclusions that correlate positively with Church teaching then it is not useless but has been used successfully and perfectly. However, if one does not wish to use reason it is acceptable to simply learn what the Church teaches because she *has *provided the answers and as the Church is the Body of Christ, those answers are from God and therefore perfect.Reason is useless if you can only use to come to Church approved conclusions.
Why waste the effort if they have already given you the answers
The Industrial Revolution never would have occurred if a significant segment of humanity had not abandoned that type thinking.
What does the Industrial Revolution have to do with Church teaching?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
God is omnipotent. He can do whatever He wants to do as long as it does not go against His very being. If He wants to be a CEO He can certainly be a CEO and He is already a King here on earth.
R
RobbyS
Guest
. Uh, well. Why not take the example of a real historical character , such as Joseph Smith, the Morman founder.
R
RobbyS
Guest
He’s bought the myth that the Church is hostile to Science. As if Pascal and other founders of the IR were not Christians. Forgetting that the Galileo incident was in fact between him and the Aristoteleans. If the Church was guilty, it was preferring one paradign over another. St. Thomas had drawn a lot of flack for taking Aristotle’s metaphysics as a useful tool, and the Philosopher’s writings had become integrated into the Church’s worldview. IAC, Cardinal Bellarmine was quite right in
warning Galileo to present his views as a hypothesis rather than a certainty. Not for another century had the findings of the early astronomers been generally accepted. Nonetheless, we know that the Gregorian calender made use of the empirical findings. The data was incomplete when Galileo made his brilliant guess.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Because science (and remember technology comes from science) is all about studying the world around you and coming to conclusions based on all the available evidence (and in practice conducting tests to gather more evidence).
Reaching answers based on evidence, not teachings from people or groups claiming infallibility (such as the Pope) or special knewledge.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
So what God does doesn’t have to make sense, appear logical, be plausible, etc.?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
The Mormons have more or less already done that.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
You appear to be admitting in your post that the Church IS hostile to Science when that science conflicts with current Church politics.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Most of the knowledge that scientists posses personally comes from studying the authorities. So don’t overstate your case. The mechanics --and much of the math-- learned and used by engineers is based on the authority of Issac Newton. Somethings are bedrock. Incidentally, from what we now know about Sir Issac, he probably must be included among those who believe in intelligent design. Certainly he did not share the atheism of the Philosophes who tried to use his research to discredit Christianity. I doubt he would have accepted the skepticism of Hume, either.
R
RobbyS
Guest
“Politics.”? Well, the Church was certainly sensitive the charges of the Protestants that it was indifferent to the letter of the Bible. Galileo made the mistake of alienating a pope who had been his defender by asserting that HIS deductions were absolute truth. You might go back and looks at what Galileo was actually saying at the time. It would be up to Newton to PROVE much of which Galileo had asserted. Understand that in the 17th Century until the time of Newton, our ideas of the universe were still very, very crude. Descartes proposed model that made the solar system a huge clock-like thing. For many years, Newton’s model was not accepted because he could not explain the idea of force at a distance. It was not finally accepted as fact until Newton was an old man, and probably seventy years after Galileo’s death.
M
mwok
Guest
If I was your employer and you decided to get wasted in your closed bedroom rather than show up for work.
If I was expecting you to pick me up because you were my only ride, but you decided to get drunk in your closed bedroom.
(Please don’t consider) If you decided to commit suicide in your closed bedroom, we would be less a Spock in this world.
- Status