Replies

This is a classic example, just classic. It simply couldn't be better.

I asked, for clarification:
Are you suggesting I have never read that verse before and have never thought about it?

I was trying to understand why you said "new".

Out of that QUESTION, YOU spin admonishments to ME not to read into things!

"Are you suggesting ...?" is or can be a yes or no question. So who is reading what into what?

A clear writing, with clear explicit meaning, that is certified, isn't up for interpretation.

Again, that's an act of interpretation. And what does "certified" mean in this context?

My argument to Quix may explain what I mean:

[Quix:] To take the Biblical words at face value is an . . . interpretation?
[Me:] "Behold the lamb of God."
The minute some words are taken as figurative and others are taken "at face value", interpretation enters the picture.
From this we can see that to decide to take all or none of them "at face value" is also an interpretive act.
In everyday life, when we decide what is "figure" and what is "ground" we have interpreted.
So I answer: Yes.

Actually, the classic response goes like this: of course my answer to your post will be the question of the body and blood of Christ. Then you will answer that is literal. And I will ask why the Lamb of God, the sheep, the door, the vine, etc. are all metaphors, but the body and blood are literal. Which will lead to the 'Upon this rock', Peter, popes, keys to the kingdom, etc. which will be met by tradition and doctrines, which will be countered by Sola Scriptura. And so the Carousel of Unity goes around and around. Scraping bottom, tilting to the right, and dragging towards the back.

Seeing what is not there, and denying what is clearly there can never be countered.