Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 6   [ 106 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:05 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:38 pm
Posts: 838
Religion: Roman Catholic
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Because Jesus isn't the Father. To call Himself that would be to confuse the relations within the Trinity. Since priests are manifestly not members of the Trinity, there is no danger there.

but Jesus said

"If you have seen Me you have seen the Father"

He also said "I and the Father are One"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:09 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 831
Religion: Catholic
flyingaway:
'Jesus said
"If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" He also said "I and the Father are One" '
-----------
But as Frank Sheed explains “we find 'I' used on two levels...God the Son speaks in the nature which is His eternally from the Father, and in the nature which became His in the womb of Mary.” [“Christ In Eclipse”, p 50, by F J Sheed, Sheed and Ward, 1978].

There is no need to get confused – follow those who know how to interpret the meaning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:04 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:38 pm
Posts: 838
Religion: Roman Catholic
Thomist wrote:
flyingaway:
'Jesus said
"If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" He also said "I and the Father are One" '
-----------
But as Frank Sheed explains “we find 'I' used on two levels...God the Son speaks in the nature which is His eternally from the Father, and in the nature which became His in the womb of Mary.” [“Christ In Eclipse”, p 50, by F J Sheed, Sheed and Ward, 1978].

There is no need to get confused – follow those who know how to interpret the meaning.

i need someone to interpret your post...

:scratch:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:19 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 831
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
Flying away: “i need someone to interpret your post...”


You need to understand that:
1) As Jesus is God He rightly says “I and the Father are One.”
2) As Jesus is Man, in His human nature as born form the Virgin Mary, He rightly says “I thirst” (Jn 19: 28).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:24 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:53 pm
Posts: 453
Religion: Looking for answers
Thomist wrote:
flyingaway:
'Jesus said
"If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" He also said "I and the Father are One" '
-----------
But as Frank Sheed explains “we find 'I' used on two levels...God the Son speaks in the nature which is His eternally from the Father, and in the nature which became His in the womb of Mary.” [“Christ In Eclipse”, p 50, by F J Sheed, Sheed and Ward, 1978].

There is no need to get confused – follow those who know how to interpret the meaning.

That's an interpretation, but how does Frank Sheed or you or anyone else know that it's a correct interpretation?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:27 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6143
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
GKC wrote:
eddierulz wrote:
If we are to take this literally we also cannot use the terms Teacher and Doctor (Latin origin for teacher)

Besides , it is then ironic that Pastor is acceptable to some then when Scripture in John 10 and Psalm 23 attribute that title to Jesus .

Also wanted to point out that the the Orthodox and Coptic churches both have no problem with the usage of the term Father and priests being called that . The ancient church understood this , it is only post the Reformation that this is being interpreted literally .



And, of course, Anglicans are a motley crew; like a box of chocolates, you never know. But certainly Anglicans (carefully selected) call their priest "Father". I did today, 3 times.
I’m called Father all the time here in Northeast England.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:15 pm 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19397
Closet Catholic wrote:
GKC wrote:
eddierulz wrote:
If we are to take this literally we also cannot use the terms Teacher and Doctor (Latin origin for teacher)

Besides , it is then ironic that Pastor is acceptable to some then when Scripture in John 10 and Psalm 23 attribute that title to Jesus .

Also wanted to point out that the the Orthodox and Coptic churches both have no problem with the usage of the term Father and priests being called that . The ancient church understood this , it is only post the Reformation that this is being interpreted literally .



And, of course, Anglicans are a motley crew; like a box of chocolates, you never know. But certainly Anglicans (carefully selected) call their priest "Father". I did today, 3 times.
I’m called Father all the time here in Northeast England.



And rightly so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:21 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:53 pm
Posts: 453
Religion: Looking for answers
Doom wrote:
eddierulz wrote:
If we are to take this literally we also cannot use the terms Teacher and Doctor (Latin origin for teacher)

Besides, it is then ironic that Pastor is acceptable to some then when Scripture in John 10 and Psalm 23 attribute that title to Jesus.

Also wanted to point out that the Orthodox and Coptic churches both have no problem with the usage of the term Father and priests being called that. The ancient church understood this, it is only post the Reformation that this is being interpreted literally.


A 'literal' interpretation means that you interpret it according to the way that the first generation of readers would have understood it. What you mean is a 'literalistic' interpretation.

For example, if I say 'you are pulling my leg', the literal interpretation of this expression is 'you are teasing me or telling me a joke', however, if you think it means that I am accusing you of grabbing one of my appendages, you aren't being literal, you are being literalistic.

That's not correct Doom. In the example you have given, 'literal' means what you have said 'literalistic' means.

If you say 'you are pulling my leg', the literal meaning is "grabbing one of my appendages". If you mean teasing or joking, that's the figurative meaning.

I'm not quite sure what 'literalistic' means, especially in the context of interpreting scripture, but I know what 'literal' means in the context of the example you have given.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:42 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76073
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Denise Dee wrote:

That's not correct Doom.


I am correct. My definition of 'literal' is the same definition that has been given by every western literary critic since Aristotle, and it is the way that Christians and Jews have defined 'the literal sense of scripture' since the time of Philo of Judea circa 100 BC.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:45 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76073
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Denise Dee wrote:

That's an interpretation, but how does Frank Sheed or you or anyone else know that it's a correct interpretation?


How do I know that my interpretation of your post here is correct?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:06 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 81311
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Doom wrote:
Denise Dee wrote:

That's not correct Doom.


I am correct. My definition of 'literal' is the same definition that has been given by every western literary critic since Aristotle, and it is the way that Christians and Jews have defined 'the literal sense of scripture' since the time of Philo of Judea circa 100 BC.


Cf. CCC 109-119, especially 110 and 116.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:30 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:53 pm
Posts: 453
Religion: Looking for answers
Doom wrote:
Denise Dee wrote:

That's an interpretation, but how does Frank Sheed or you or anyone else know that it's a correct interpretation?


How do I know that my interpretation of your post here is correct?

It's not correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:35 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:53 pm
Posts: 453
Religion: Looking for answers
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Doom wrote:
Denise Dee wrote:

That's not correct Doom.


I am correct. My definition of 'literal' is the same definition that has been given by every western literary critic since Aristotle, and it is the way that Christians and Jews have defined 'the literal sense of scripture' since the time of Philo of Judea circa 100 BC.


Cf. CCC 109-119, especially 110 and 116.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm


I'm not disputing or correcting anything Doom said in the context of interpreting scripture, I'm correcting his definition of "literal" in the very non-scriptural example he gave:

"For example, if I say 'you are pulling my leg', the literal interpretation of this expression is 'you are teasing me or telling me a joke', however, if you think it means that I am accusing you of grabbing one of my appendages, you aren't being literal, you are being literalistic."

Any modern English dictionary will tell you that he is wrong about that definition of "literal".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:44 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 81311
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Actually, any good modern English dictionary will tell you that he's right. Try the Oxford English Dictionary:

    II. Free from metaphor, allegory, etc.
    5.

    a. orig. Theology. Originally in the context of a traditional distinction between the literal sense and various spiritual senses of a sacred text: designating or relating to the sense intended by the author of a text, normally discovered by taking the words in their natural or customary meaning, in the context of the text as a whole, without regard to any ulterior spiritual or symbolic meaning. Opposed to ALLEGORICAL adj., ANAGOGICAL adj. 1, MORAL adj. 2d, MYSTICAL adj. 1b, TROPOLOGICAL adj. 1. In later use also often: designating or relating to the sense derived by taking the words in their primary concrete meaning (opposed to figurative, metaphorical, etc.).

You are insisting on the "later use" sense only, but since we are talking about theology, the original sense still applies.

I grant that other online dictionaries don't mention it, but this only means that they are incomplete.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:55 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 8905
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
Does the OED contain "literalistic"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:32 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 81311
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Of, relating to, or characterized by literalism; belonging to or characteristic of a literalist.

1850 New Church Repository & Monthly Rev. Mar. 104 Showing what formidable opposition Mr. L. will have to encounter..in the attempt to commend his literalistic theory to the acceptance of Christendom.
1875 E. Poste tr. Gaius Institutionum Iuris Civilis (ed. 2) iv. Comm. 503 Strictum jus adheres to a grammatical or literalistic interpretation of a disposition.
1918 Columbia Law Rev. 18 72 This commendable decision is in accord with the tendency of the courts to refuse to give a literalistic interpretation to the constitutional provision.
1971 Amer. Q. 23 334 The crucial foundation for millenarianists was a literalistic understanding of biblical apocalyptic literature.
2004 Times Lit. Suppl. 17 Dec. 7/1 Zealous believers in a literalistic revealed religion are easily tempted to allow certainty to develop into the kind of intransigent dogmatism which..keeps atheism in business.


---------------------------------------

The 1971 citation is an exact example of the usage in question in this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:31 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:53 pm
Posts: 453
Religion: Looking for answers
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Actually, any good modern English dictionary will tell you that he's right. Try the Oxford English Dictionary:

    II. Free from metaphor, allegory, etc.
    5.

    a. orig. Theology. Originally in the context of a traditional distinction between the literal sense and various spiritual senses of a sacred text: designating or relating to the sense intended by the author of a text, normally discovered by taking the words in their natural or customary meaning, in the context of the text as a whole, without regard to any ulterior spiritual or symbolic meaning. Opposed to ALLEGORICAL adj., ANAGOGICAL adj. 1, MORAL adj. 2d, MYSTICAL adj. 1b, TROPOLOGICAL adj. 1. In later use also often: designating or relating to the sense derived by taking the words in their primary concrete meaning (opposed to figurative, metaphorical, etc.).

You are insisting on the "later use" sense only, but since we are talking about theology, the original sense still applies.

I grant that other online dictionaries don't mention it, but this only means that they are incomplete.

For the third time I will state that I am not disputing Doom's definition of the word 'literal' in the context of scripture or theology.

I am disputing and correcting Doom's definition of 'literal' in the paragraph in which Doom, in modern English, using a modern example, said:

"For example, if I say 'you are pulling my leg', the literal interpretation of this expression is 'you are teasing me or telling me a joke', however, if you think it means that I am accusing you of grabbing one of my appendages, you aren't being literal, you are being literalistic."

There is nothing scriptural or theological or ancient about that paragraph. It is quite simply wrong. In the context of this thread, it is still wrong. Everything else Doom said in this thead may be entirely correct, but that paragraph is incorrect. The fact that Doom refuses to acknowledge that it's incorrect does not give me confidence that the rest of what he has said is correct, but I know for sure that what he said in the paragraph about "pulling my leg" is incorrect.

Doom said:

"For example, if I say 'you are pulling my leg', the literal interpretation of this expression is 'you are teasing me or telling me a joke'

That's wrong, that's not a literal interpretation, it's a figurative interpretation.

And Doom said:

"however, if you think it means that I am accusing you of grabbing one of my appendages, you aren't being literal, you are being literalistic."

That's wrong too, it doesn't mean "you aren't being literal", it means the opposite, it means you ARE being literal.

So Obi, stop misleading people. If I didn't have much confidence and competence in my use of English and read what you and Doom have said, I might think Obi is very knowledgeable, I'll believe what he says before I'd believe anyone else, therefore I will use the word 'literalistic' where I previously might have used the word "literal". So consequently, for example, if I'm telling someone about my visit to a chiropractor, and I say "The chiropractor literalistically pulled my leg", I'd be laughed at.

If you google the exact phrase "literally pulled my leg", you get dozens of examples.

If you google the exact phrase, "literalistically pulled my leg", you get 'No results found for "literalistically pulled my leg".'

If you google the exact phrase "literally pulled his leg", you get dozens of examples.

If you google the exact phrase, "literalistically pulled his leg", you get 'No results found for "literalistically pulled his leg".'

If you google the exact phrase "literally pulled her leg", you get dozens of examples.

If you google the exact phrase, "literalistically pulled her leg", you get 'No results found for "literalistically pulled her leg".'

If you google the exact phrase "pulled my leg literally", you get dozens of examples.

If you google the exact phrase, "pulled my leg literalistically", you get 'No results found for "pulled my leg literalistically".'

If you google the exact phrase, "leg in the literal sense", you get several examples.

If you google the exact phrase, "leg in the literalistic sense", you get 'No results found for "leg in the literalistic sense".'

And so on.

Same with, for example, the exact phrase "literally blew", there are dozens of results.

But if you google the exact phrase "literalistically blew", you get 'No results found for "literalistically blew".'

And so on.

There isn't even one example anywhere to be found on the Internet where Doom's definition is used in the kind of example he gave.

It is very clearly wrong for Doom to say "if you think it means that I am accusing you of grabbing one of my appendages, you aren't being literal", and Obi I don't understand how you can say that's correct when in fact the opposite is correct.

If you claim that words mean the opposite of what they mean, then how am I to understand anything you say. So when you said "any good modern English dictionary will tell you that he's right", maybe that means you think he's wrong!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:17 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 81311
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
What happened is that he used the word in a way you didn't expect. That doesn't make it wrong. That means you can ask for an explanation, say, "Oh, okay, I wasn't expecting that, but I see what you mean," and move along.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:46 am 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12672
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
To the OP, I've given up on discussing this very issue with my fundamentalist friends.

One is an incredibly intelligent woman, who is agile and flexible on any matter except her religion. Which she advocates with an endless series of biblical quotations. When such a topic arises, I can see the glaze appear in her eyes, her voice rises, and she begins quoting verse after verse...and substantiates their literal authority by saying that the Bible is the Word of God and cannot be abridged, related, interpreted, colored, considered, contextualized (see how that word plays per the above) except as literal.

Oh, and when I used to point out an inherent contradiction in verses, she rolls her eyes and replies something like, "Well, of course the real meaning of the verses removes any contradiction." Fruitless.

It is as if the Bible consists of a collection of very large number (∞) of randomly independent verses by different authors who have no connection to each other or to any overarching thread.

So, I avoid Biblical discussion (wrong word -- listening to an endless, repetitive monologue is more accurate) with her and her ilk.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:00 am 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19397
Highlander wrote:
To the OP, I've given up on discussing this very issue with my fundamentalist friends.

One is an incredibly intelligent woman, who is agile and flexible on any matter except her religion. Which she advocates with an endless series of biblical quotations. When such a topic arises, I can see the glaze appear in her eyes, her voice rises, and she begins quoting verse after verse...and substantiates their literal authority by saying that the Bible is the Word of God and cannot be abridged, related, interpreted, colored, considered, contextualized (see how that word plays per the above) except as literal.

Oh, and when I used to point out an inherent contradiction in verses, she rolls her eyes and replies something like, "Well, of course the real meaning of the verses removes any contradiction." Fruitless.

It is as if the Bible consists of a collection of very large number (∞) of randomly independent verses by different authors who have no connection to each other or to any overarching thread.

So, I avoid Biblical discussion (wrong word -- listening to an endless, repetitive monologue is more accurate) with her and her ilk.



Wisdom.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 6   [ 106 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


Jump to: