How is Jesus literally the Water of life (John 4:14) -- and how would a "literal" rendering of this from a RC perspective be distinct from a Protestant one?
I never said it was.
And I guess your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpreting certain Scripture passings suddenly becomes "less literal" in interpreting passages like Matt. 23:9?
I have not emphasized literalness by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another. Such a thing has nothing to do with anything. Are you even reading these posts? And, RC is a brand of cola, and so is entirely unrelated to the discussion.
And I suppose your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpretation might be a bit "less" literal than the singularity of Hebrews 1?
See above. I have never argued about Catholic literalness, and Royal Crown Cola is not germane.
and confess that even after you followed up, I still don't get the point you were trying to make here.
Yes, that is abundantly clear. Let me help you out. It is very simple. I have made two points. Only two.
You have ignored these issues in order to post false accusations that I have "condemned" others. You have debated things I never said, and focused entirely on your assumptions about Catholics rather than what has been posted. I have never argued that Catholics are more literal, but yet you have decided now that this is what is in play. Its laughable. How can somebody who imagines words like "spiritualize," , "symbolize" and "real" in simple English sentences where they never appear, and then sees condemnation where it isn't even remotely hinted at, claim to have any ability to interpret particular verses of scripture as you are trying to do? You simply lack credibility in this.
What do you call post #162, then?
Cothrige, #162: ...the initial editing on the posting of the article was, I think, perhaps intentionally deceptive. But, when people want to believe something badly enough they will grab anything they can and twist whatever comes along to their own ends.
How do you know this? How are you able to glean the intentional inward motives of strangers you don't know? Doesn't Scripture say that only God knows the inward heart -- that man looks @ only what's going on on the outside? (1 Samuel 16:7)
Here you condemned Alex Murphy for being "intentionally deceptive" -- and then you act all offended when somebody points out that this spirit of condemnation is found on your keyboard breath...and then you proceed to repeatedly accuse me for pointing out this breath on you -- that I'm being "false."
Tell us, Cothrige, how are you able to discover inward motivations of strangers? Perhaps you'd like to apologize to Alex Murphy now?
To quote what do you told SkyPilot in #246: "You simply cannot have it both ways, and suggesting otherwise is just making egregious assumptions based on personal bias and prejudice."
So if SkyPilot can't have it "both ways" -- why are you able to have it both ways? If you accuse SkyPilot of "making egregious assumptions based on personal bias and prejudice" what egregious assumptions about Alex Murphy did you make in post #162? Were they based upon "personal bias" toward Alex Murphy based upon previous posts by Alex Murphy? Or what?
Certainly to claim you know the inward motivations of a poster is a rather large assumption, is it not? And to claim they are intentionally being deceptive is egregious, is it not?
Either you are simply a very slippery fellow, or you weren't following what you said in post #272 -- and why I introduced the word "real" in post #279 (my response).
Here's what you said in 272 -- you were covering All of John 6: Cothrige, #272 If a pope comes out tomorrow and says that John 6 doesn't really reflect a teaching on the Eucharist no Catholic would accept it. It would be one man's opinion, and a bad one.
In case you want to look at John 6:55, the word "real" is there (twice). It's not imagined as you now claim. [So not only did I bring a verse from John 6 into play after you mentioned John 6, I was also introducing this Biblical word as a contrast to how Catholics like to emphasize John 6 as the "literal" body and blood of Christ...the word "literal" isn't ever mentioned in John 6...the word "real" is...]
I have not emphasized literalness by anybody, and have never suggested that any one group is more literal than another. .. I have never argued about Catholic literalness...I have never argued that Catholics are more literal, but yet you have decided now that this is what is in play. (your post #310)
Cothrige, post #102: ...don't think inspiration was in question, but rather LITERAL truth. (1)
It seems to me that it is entirely possible for certain discrete statements in the Bible to not be "literally true" (2)
and yet for the Bible to still be inspired and true...Personally, I consider the entire Bible inspired, but I don't know if that inspiration means that every number in every instance is identical exactly to the LITERAL truth. (3)
I can tell you that it would be strange indeed if reality always happened in neat rounded numbers. That doesn't reflect MY EXPERIENCE of LITERAL truth. (4)
Not emphasized "literalness" by anybody? (Yeah, right...you're entirely too slippery)
Oh, and you didn't stop there in deciding that the subject of "literalness" was "in play" for thee, but not for me:
Cothrige, #273: Every reasonable Christian knows that one has to consider any single statement from Scripture within the whole context in order to know whether it is meant to be taken as LITERALLY true on its own, (5)
or rather as contributing to a point being made through a greater segment of text. For instance, is it "LITERALLY true" when Christ said "This is my body" over bread? (6)
We say yes, given the context of the entire Scriptures and their witness to the Eucharistic faith of the Church. We also say yes given the historic witness of the Church throughout history. However, and very ironically, most of the people shouting that Catholics deny the Bible in believing that not every sentence of the Bible must be "LITERALLY true," (7)
would say this single sentence is actually not LITERALLY true. (8)
What the Holy Father is talking about here is actually what 99% of Christians do every time they read the Bible. Some want to make things controversial, but nothing said here actually is.
Nice to know that after you mentioned "literal" and its similar words eight times in two posts that you...
...(1) now claim you "have not emphasized liternalness"
...and (2) accuse me of suddenly "decided now that this is what is in play."
Perhaps if you had simply recalled what you typed in two posts, the subject of "literalness" wouldn't have popped up to surprise you & bite you in the nose.
You then added Its laughable.
The above really is.
You know you've said you've wanted to refocus on the roots of the very article itself. The most basic root is where this article originated -- a message from the Pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC). Has this PBC focused significantly on what they deem as a "spiritual interpretation" of the Bible? Indeed they have, as I show below.
So even though the PBC has done that, you somehow treat my intro of the word "spiritualize" as somehow foreign to this conversation...like you did in posts 310 above (that I've "imagined" them as if they don't appear in the PBC documents)...or that this is such a strange concept to you as you indicated in post 285:
The other side of literal truth is not necessarily "spiritualizing," whatever that may be. As the spirit and Spirit are literal truths I am a little confused by your strange choice of opposition here. (Your Post #285)
Here is an author --one of three (Wilken) -- writing about the PBC in First Things:
The value of the report of the Commission is that it offers a constructive response, one that is firmly rooted in the classical exegetical tradition of the Church, yet at the same time attentive to the intellectual developments of the last two centuries. What the Commission offers is a defense of the "spiritual interpretation" of the Bible. Its arguments are informed, nuanced, and sophisticated, but the very use of the term "spiritual" will provoke controversy. "Spiritual interpretation" seems to suggest that the way forward is to go backward, to abandon the accomplishments of the last two hundred years and to return to a precritical reading of the Bible. From "spiritual interpretation," some will say, it is only a tiny step to medieval allegory and all its evil works.
The Commission is aware of the risks in reintroducing the term "spiritual." For this reason it addresses the most obvious criticism of the "spiritual" sense, namely, that it ignores the historical meaning. Its argument is elegantly simple: spiritual exegesis means interpreting the Bible in light of history, the history of God's revelation in Christ. That is, "spiritual" means "historical," reading the Scriptures through the prism of Christ's death and Resurrection: "The spiritual sense," the Commission writes, "results from setting the text in relation to real facts which are not foreign to it; the paschal event [the death and Resurrection of Christ], in all its inexhaustible richness, which constitutes the summit of the divine intervention in the history of Israel, to the benefit of all mankind."
Source: Interpreting the Bible: Three Views