[sndbay]

how can you argue that men follow man's doctrine? There is no such thing if all interpretation is given from the Holy Spirit and is the will of God!

Look to the Word of God, search for wisdom that is the knowledge scripture offers. There is such a thing of man's doctrine for those who do not read, and instead depend upon others to read for them. All that was written was fulfilled in Christ for us to follow HIM. And Yes, Jesus told the disciple Peter to feed His sheep. And Christ promised Peter and the other disciples the Comforter would be sent to put them in rememberances of all they had been told by HIM. The causion is to watch what is being fed today. Is it indeed Christ's blood, which is the cup of the New Testament) (1 Corinthinas 11:25) and that we drink of that cup in rememberance of HIM. Or today are we being fed by the many false prophets that shall rise, and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:11)

Question why someone might try to deceive us in thinking what is written would not be all the truth or not enough of the spirit of truth? Why would it be that all are not taught to read and search the Word of God, and told to depend upon it's truth.

Statement of Truth is that All that was written was given by the inspiration of God and HIS witnesses that were godly servants in doing HIS will.

Then also question why these deceiving many have changed the order of what was written?


2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Gal 6:6-7-8 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

[JoeT777]

This is a different thread discussion entirely. But I will say that it is all according to what your heart is willing to believe. That is why the heart is search by Christ. Men that follow man's doctrine as example in the teaching of scripture, are also exampled that God permitting the delusion of their ways or choice.

It brings attention to Christ saying to follow Him and deny thyself. What is the willingness of heart ?

Both Gromitt82 and elscarta have asked germane questions given that you suggested that the result of multiple interpretations of scripture is derived from the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity and that yours are correct and everybody else is wrong. I've asked the same question before, why is Catholic interpretation of Scripture different from yours. What makes it different based on your theories? Why is Catholic interpretation “man's doctrine” and your interpretation Divine? If they both come from the Holy Spirit why would God delude one and not the other? Why would God delude either, does God lie? Is Catholicism wrong in your estimation and what is the basis of your opinion? It would be very interesting if you would be candid.

JoeT

[gromitt82]

Both Gromitt82 and elscarta have asked germane questions given that you suggested that the result of multiple interpretations of scripture is derived from the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity and that yours are correct and everybody else is wrong. I’ve asked the same question before, why is Catholic interpretation of Scripture different from yours. What makes it different based on your theories? Why is Catholic interpretation “man’s doctrine” and your interpretation Divine? If they both come from the Holy Spirit why would God delude one and not the other? Why would God delude either, does God lie? Is Catholicism wrong in your estimation and what is basis of your opinion? It would be very interesting if you would be candid.

JoeT

Fanaticism is a dangerous trend (even a curse) as far as Religion is concerned. The Inquisition was a reflection of the fanaticism that flooded our Roman Catholic Church as of the 13th century and that was responsible for countless atrocities.
Jesus' message certainly discards any kind of fanaticism while He is preaching "love one another". " A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another (John 13:34).

I'm sorry to say so but I'm afraid our colleague tends to be somewhat "fanatic" in his/her remarks.

Gromitt82

[sndbay]

Sndbay,
I am not judging your faith.
ONLY God can do that.

True and in that God will be the judge of faulty works

You believe as you do and I do believe as I do.

True

I see some Scripture differently than you do.

True and those difference can be discussed and disagreed upon without judgement, but by way of discernment.

That's nothing new. It has gone on for many years particularly since the Protestants came into being.
For me I must go along with the authority of God in His Word and His Church that Jesus founded of the Rock called Peter.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

True you do Fred, and I follow the Rock that is Christ Jesus. The same spiritual Rock that is written of in scripture that all did drink and eat upon. The spiritaul Rock that is with us today and always.

1 Corinthians 10:3-4 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I hear the voice of Christ, and choice to follow HIM. I want to put my heart of love and trust in Christ.

By the mouth of our Lord, and Saviour Jesus Christ he tells us that he beheld Peter, and said in scripture thou shalt be call Cephas, which was said to be A stone.

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

There is no other Rock then Christ Jesus. Those that go through heavens gate shall sing the song of Moses (Revelation 15:3) The song of Moses is written of in (Deu 32) if anyone cares to read of it.

That is the difference between what we follow by choice

~in Christ

[JoeT777]

Interesting that you should call our attention to 1 Cor 10:1-4; St. Chrysostom writes passionately about these verses. The importance he places on the Font (Fountain) is that it spews forth the refreshing graces of Christ, “For as you eat the Lord's Body, so they the manna: and as you drink the Blood, so they water from a rock.” The Holy Table is set before you.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4

For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant.

Now this he said, implying that they were not very well instructed in these things. And what is this which you would not have us ignorant of?

That our fathers, says he, were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ. Howbeit with most of them God was not well pleased.

And wherefore says he these things? To point out that as they were nothing profited by the enjoyment of so great a gift, so neither these by obtaining Baptism and partaking of spiritual Mysteries, except they go on and show forth a life worthy of this grace. Wherefore also he introduces the types both of Baptism and of the Mysteries.

But what is, They were baptized into Moses? Like as we, on our belief in Christ and His resurrection, are baptized, as being destined in our own persons to partake in the same mysteries; for, we are baptized, says he, for the dead, i.e., for our own bodies; even so they putting confidence in Moses, i.e., having seen him cross first, ventured also themselves into the waters. But because he wishes to bring the Type near the Truth; he speaks it not thus, but uses the terms of the Truth even concerning the Type.

Further: this was a symbol of the Font, and that which follows, of the Holy Table. For as you eat the Lord's Body, so they the manna: and as you drink the Blood, so they water from a rock. For though they were things of sense which were produced, yet were they spiritually exhibited, not according to the order of nature, but according to the gracious intention of the gift, and together with the body nourished also the soul, leading it unto faith. On this account, you see, touching the food he made no remark, for it was entirely different, not in mode only but in nature also; (for it was manna;) but respecting the drink, since the manner only of the supply was extraordinary and required proof, therefore having said that they drank the same spiritual drink, he added, for they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them, and he subjoined, and the Rock was Christ. For it was not the nature of the rock which sent forth the water, (such is his meaning,) else would it as well have gushed out before this time: but another sort of Rock, a spiritual One, performed the whole, even Christ who was everywhere with them and wrought all the wonders. For on this account he said, that followed them.

Perceivest thou the wisdom of Paul, how in both cases he points cut Him as the Giver, and thereby brings the Type near to the Truth? For He who set those things before them, says he, the same also has prepared this our Table: and the same Person both brought them through the sea and you through Baptism; and before them set manna, but before you His Body and Blood.

4. As touching His gift then, such is the case: now let us observe also what follows, and consider, whether when they showed themselves unworthy of the gift, He spared them. Nay, this you can not say. Wherefore also he added, Howbeit with most of them God was not well-pleased; although He had honored them with so great honor. Yea, it profited them nothing, but most of them perished. The truth is, they all perished, but that he might not seem to prophesy total destruction to these also, therefore he said, most of them. And yet they were innumerable, but their number profited them nothing: and these were all so many tokens of love; but not even did this profit them, inasmuch as they did not themselves show forth the fruits of love.

Thus, since most men disbelieve the things said of hell, as not being present nor in sight; he alleges the things heretofore done as a proof that God does punish all who sin, even though He have bestowed innumerable benefits upon them: for if you disbelieve the things to come, so he speaks, yet surely the things that are past ye will not disbelieve. Consider, for example, how great benefits He bestowed on them: from Egypt and the slavery there He set them free, the sea He made their path, from heaven he brought down manna, from beneath He sent forth strange and marvellous fountains of waters; He was with them every where, doing wonders and fencing them in on every side: nevertheless since they showed forth nothing worthy of this gift, He spared them not, but destroyed them all. Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 23 CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 23 on First Corinthians (Chrysostom)

[elscarta]

Look to the Word of God, search for wisdom that is the knowledge scripture offers. There is such a thing of man's doctrine for those who do not read, and instead depend upon others to read for them.

Sndbay, you have skirted the main point in my post and instead have narrowed your answer to a minor detail.

So I will rephrase my question to make it abundantly clear what I am asking.

How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depend upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means if as you believe

The result of interpretation for everyone is given from the Holy Spirit, and therefore the will of God.

This is not a hypothetical situation but one that I find myself in with a good friend of mine.

God is Truth and yet according to you it is His Will that either my friend or me believes in a falsehood!

[TUT317]

Sndbay, you have skirted the main point in my post and instead have narrowed your answer to a minor detail.

So I will rephrase my question to make it abundantly clear what I am asking.

How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depend upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means if as you believe



This is not a hypothetical situation but one that I find myself in with a good friend of mine.

God is Truth and yet according to you it is His Will that either my friend or me believes in a falsehood!

I think the answer can be found in what as become known as 'the ordinary language-school'.
I am thinking in particular of Wittgenstein. Basically Wittgenstein abandoned his earlier works when he came to the realization that the search for a perfect language which accurately reflected the world could not be realized. We have no choice, we can only think in the language that we have available to us. If this language contains anomalies and is inconsistent then we are inconsistent with our interpretation of any given works.

To quote Wittgenstein,'Language is a labyrinth of paths. You approach from one side and know your way about; you approach the same place from another side and you no longer know your way'.

God has a message for us but he can only give it to us through language. Because language is far from perfect and because we are far from perfect when we wish to interpret language we often come up with different answers to the same question.

It is often the fault of language and not so much as the fault individuals which I am sure is the case here.

[TUT317]

When I talked about the anomalies of language perhaps I should have included an example.

Let us look at this example.

'He was destined to pick up an infection while working there'

Does this mean:-

(A) Because of his disregard for hygiene in general he was destined to pick up an infection.

(B) He is usually careful with matters of hygiene, but because of circumstances beyond his control he was destined to pick up an infection.

Which is correct? Answer If I don't provide you with any more information then you can argue till the cows come home.

We can also look at it this way as well.

Even though things can come to people through religious insight, they still have to put it into language. In other words we/they still have to 'walk the labyrinth of language paths'

[arcura]

Tut,
That was very interesting. Thanks.

Joe Thanks much for posting that.
Fred

[JoeT777]

How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depend upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means.

I think that ‘Wise Tut’ missed this by a mile. Language is far from the cause, but rather the presence of convoluted language is the symptom of the H1N1 of faith. It’s a designer virus attacking "right reasoning" since its introduction by an errant monk who started mass production in 1520. It’s defined by Catholics as liberalism; somewhat similar to the political variant. Liberalism holds, as a right, emancipation of Divine Authority and sovereignty in all sectors of life that control and judge all matters. To satisfy the liberal, God must conform His will to that of man’s. This is because liberalism true authority resides in the interior of the individual with the power to shut out God’s creation found on the outside. The philosophy proposes that "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part, and perhaps in some cases without realizing it, liberalism denies God with this autonomous freedom which is in conflict with the Church. Once completely overtaken by the disease, the individual finds no ‘right’, no ‘wrong’; only that which warms the interior, what feels good becomes good.

An autonomous authority requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God’s will. As such Scriptures become subjective to the individual and different for each individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "one religion is as good as another." Faith becomes a social construct based on whether it feels right, changing from time to time depending on expediency. Discipline in faith is exercised less and less, and becomes weedy with passing time until all discipline in right reasoning is rejected. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn from autonomous intellectual lack guidance and authority and as such judgments become rationalizations, without a foundation in an absolute truth that only the Catechism brings. Thus it can be said that liberalism becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”

Like viruses found in nature, there is no natural immunity, the body merely becomes accustom to invading profanation. Each variant of liberalism mutates from simple schismatic sects to complex variants completely void of any vestige of Christianity. There is however a treatment facility, a Divine hospice, the Catholic faith.

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT,
You have made an excellent point.
And it is why I am an orthodox Catholic.
But politically I am somewhat of a liberal but mostly a moderate.
My Christianity insists that a laborer is worth his wages, that a hungry person needs to eat, that a homeless person need shelter and those are called liberal politiacally.
But to me they are of Christian roots.
As an orthodox Catholic I believe what The Church Jesus founded on the rock called Peter is the true Church and as the bible says the source and foundation of the truth.
So therefore what it officially teaches is the truth and all of that is based on Holy Scripture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

Hello Joe T.

When you say,'Language is far from the cause, but rather the presence of a convoluted language... "

Wittgenstein is saying that all language is convoluted. English is a piecemeal language made up of many different languages that evolved over time. Like all languages it contains anomalies and for some of the time is inconsistent . There is no such thing as a 'pure language'.

I am not denying that God knows what he wants to say. But even if God revealed to someone exactly what he wanted all it takes is someone like , 'an errant monk' , to misinterpret the message. Why? (A) because he deliberately set about to do so. (B) because that's what language is all about.

Lets look at (A) and (B) in light of the core question."How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depending upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means?"

In this case I think we can eliminate (A). I am happy to blame language for the problem. From your point of view who has the correct interpretation?. Elscarta or his friend? Assuming they have good intentions which I am sure they have.

[sndbay]

Sndbay, you have skirted the main point in my post and instead have narrowed your answer to a minor detail.

So I will rephrase my question to make it abundantly clear what I am asking.

How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depend upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means if as you believe



This is not a hypothetical situation but one that I find myself in with a good friend of mine.

God is Truth and yet according to you it is His Will that either my friend or me believes in a falsehood!

No the promise is if you abide in HIM and HIS word, He will abide in you.

I am positive Christ knows what is in your heart and what is in your friend's heart.

As scripture says what a man soweth, that shall he also reap. You can see results of that on this forum. Mankind have their hearts set to follow who they have chosen. No one knowns that individual heart better then Christ. I believe Christ knowns the heart of each, better then man himself .

As for me, I am willing to sow with the Word of God, and I do pray to be all He created me to be. My heart trust and believes in Christ Jesus. That He is the shepherd and bishop of my soul. I pray that God will give me the courage and strength to always remain true to HIS WIll. And I believe that is HIS Will for me as well. In the name of Jesus, in which I believe is the conquering name in power over all evil, and is the two edged sword of truth, evil can and will bow down and flee from us. So Our Father's will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

Christ searches the hearts of those that call upon HIM. The spiritual truth is that each are given according to the measure of HIS will.

John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

[sndbay]

God has a message for us but he can only give it to us through language. Because language is far from perfect and because we are far from perfect when we wish to interpret language we often come up with different answers to the same question.

There is alot of truth to what you have said. and I am sure we could take one verse of scripture and find each individual can come to a different conclusion. And others will just give what they have been told or taught it was to mean.
What I trust as being true, is that you can not conclude by one verse of words what is being said. You have to go outside the box of that one verse and obtain all that is being spoken. Plus there is so much more knowledge to be found by the entire volume of the book, and it would be difficult not to include that knowledge in the conclusion.

I offer a verse in the King James Version from the book of Matthew. .

Let's ask everyone their own understanding of this verse?

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Plus this remain important to the thread question.

[elscarta]

No the promise is if you abide in HIM and HIS word, He will abide in you.

I am positive Christ knows what is in your heart and what is in your friend's heart.

As scripture says what a man soweth, that shall he also reap. You can see results of that on this forum. Mankind have their hearts set to follow who they have chosen. No one knowns that individual heart better then Christ. I believe Christ knowns the heart of each, better then man himself .

As for me, I am willing to sow with the Word of God, and I do pray to be all He created me to be. My heart trust and believes in Christ Jesus. That He is the shepherd and bishop of my soul. I pray that God will give me the courage and strength to always remain true to HIS WIll. And I believe that is HIS Will for me as well. In the name of Jesus, in which I believe is the conquering name in power over all evil, and is the two edged sword of truth, evil can and will bow down and flee from us. So Our Father's will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

Christ searches the hearts of those that call upon HIM. The spiritual truth is that each are given according to the measure of HIS will.

John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Sndbay once again you skirt around the question. None of what you wrote answers my question at all. Are you deliberately trying to avoid answering the question?

Since you appear to be unable to give a question a simple straight forward answer, I will break down my question into a series of statements. For each statement I would like you to simply indicate whether you agree or disagree with it. As in one of my previous posts I will use transubstantiation solely as an example of a concept in the Bible that has been understood in two opposing ways. I am not interested, in this post, in which of the two opposing views is true.

1. God is Truth.

2. Satan is the father of all falsehood.

3. Transubstantiation is either true or it is not.

4. If transubstantiation is true then those who believe it is not true believe in a falsehood.

5. If transubstantiation is false then those who believe it is true believe in a falsehood.

6. Those who believe in the falsehood regarding transubstantiation, do so because of Satan, not because God wills them to believe in this falsehood.


Once I have your responses to the above statements I will continue with the remainder of my statements.

[sndbay]

1. God is Truth.

God is Righteousness, the Spirit of truth

2. Satan is the father of all falsehood.

Satan is of sin from the beginning, those who sin are of satan

3. Transubstantiation is either true or it is not.

The conversion of one substance into another, yet their appearances remain the same. Would be a form of trickery, that would be performed as magic.

4. If transubstantiation is true then those who believe it is not true believe in a falsehood.

Or can not be decreased by what is not showing in appearance

5. If transubstantiation is false then those who believe it is true believe in a falsehood.

They are decreased and believe what they have been told and not in what appears the same

6. Those who believe in the falsehood regarding transubstantiation, do so because of Satan, not because God wills them to believe in this falsehood.

Individual election of choice, to disagree or agree (Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices.)

Once I have your responses to the above statements I will continue with the remainder of my statements.

Your question was:

How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depend upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means if as you believe

Free will choice with this choice referred by ONE Faith.

Everyone won't always have the same exact understanding, although the source is in this case the volume of one Book, the Bible. Not one verse but all verses. The free will choice will vary because of the differences in surrounding influences. However we can rest in knowing Christ understands, give mercy, and we have HIS love. And Christ will aid each individual in accordance to HIS will, and the heart of each individual.

Scripture tells us some are dull of hearing, and some just are not yet of full age having reason of use in their senses that exercise discernment of right and wrong.

[JoeT777]

JoeT,
You have made an excellent point.
And it is why I am an orthodox Catholic.
But politically I am somewhat of a liberal but mostly a moderate.
My Christianity insists that a laborer is worth his wages, that a hungry person needs to eat, that a homeless person need shelter and those are called liberal politiacally.
But to me they are of Christian roots.
As an orthodox Catholic I believe what The Church Jesus founded on the rock called Peter is the true Church and as the bible says the source and foundation of the truth.
So therefore what it officially teaches is the truth and all of that is based on Holy Scripture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

We probably agree on many more things than we disagree on. I would characterize my political views as conservative. And, you couldn't guess? You must admit this is somewhat rare among Catholics. Of course labor should be paid all the market can bear, the hungry feed and the homeless sheltered. These concerns for our follow countrymen are not exclusively liberal; rather they've been hijacked by the political left as tools to move towards socialism.

You know I'm orthodox Catholic; in fact I'm sure many here would say rabidly orthodox (if there could be such a thing). And as such I can only agree that reasoning within the discipline of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit who found our faith in the harmonious agreement between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

And, I've been meaning to say for some time that I do value your opinions. I think we see things much alike.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Hello Joe T.

When you say,'Language is far from the cause, but rather the presence of a convoluted language....."

Wittgenstein is saying that all language is convoluted. English is a piecemeal language made up of many different languages that evolved over time. Like all languages it contains anomalies and for some of the time is inconsistent . There is no such thing as a 'pure language'.

I am not denying that God knows what he wants to say. But even if God revealed to someone exactly what he wanted all it takes is someone like , 'an errant monk' , to misinterpret the message. Why? (A) because he deliberately set about to do so. (B) because that's what language is all about.

Lets look at (A) and (B) in light of the core question."How is it that two people, who read the Bible and do not just depending upon others to read for them, can come to completely opposite understandings of what a passage means?"

In this case I think we can eliminate (A). I am happy to blame language for the problem. From your point of view who has the correct interpretation?..... Elscarta or his friend?.Assuming they have good intentions which I am sure they have.

I can’t agree with you, Tut. What I was trying to say is that many use convoluted language to hide their true motives, and their true meaning. They rationalize True and faith for their own reasons and in doing so will use misleading or inconstant language as cover. Thus, in your ‘A or B’ scenario I would pick A in the case of differing beliefs. I do think Catholic theology was deliberately misinterpreted by the ‘errant monk’ – and likely for political reasons as opposed to theological reasons.

I don’t disagree that language is imperfect and often cumbersome (especially in the written form). But, I don’t find it to be the cause for two different opinions of the same verse. This is the false argument that holds that all Christians, no matter what denomination, believe the same thing, only its expressed differently. This isn’t true. There are many fundamental differences.

JoeT

[elscarta]

Sndbay, you appear to lack the ability to understand a simple request and to give simple answers. In my previous post I specifically asked you to state whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

I expected below each statement a single word. Agree or Disagree.

1. God is Truth.

God is Righteousness, the Spirit of truth

I'll assume this means that you agree.

2. Satan is the father of all falsehood.

Satan is of sin from the beginning, those who sin are of satan

Again I'll assume that this means you agree.

As for the rest of the statements your responses give no indication as to whether you agree or disagree with them.

3. Transubstantiation is either true or it is not.

The conversion of one substance into another, yet their appearances remain the same. Would be a form of trickery, that would be performed as magic.

4. If transubstantiation is true then those who believe it is not true believe in a falsehood.

Or can not be decreased by what is not showing in appearance

5. If transubstantiation is false then those who believe it is true believe in a falsehood.

They are decreased and believe what they have been told and not in what appears the same

6. Those who believe in the falsehood regarding transubstantiation, do so because of Satan, not because God wills them to believe in this falsehood.

Individual election of choice, to disagree or agree (Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices.)

Here is a simple passage from the Bible for you to think about in light of the fact that my previous post asked you for a simple agree or disagree, that is a simple yes or no answer to each of the statements.

Matthew 5:37 (King James Version)
37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

[TUT317]

Hello Joe T,

When it comes down to it we generally agree on many points.

I may have created some confusion because I didn't put forward Wittgenstein's position very well. I suggested that language was the problem. While language is a problem Wittgenstein would say the way we use language is a bigger problem.

I think it comes down to what is know as ,'private language' versus 'public language'. By private language he means a language which is only understood by the person using it. An example might be the small child who has made up words to represent certain objects or things. As an adult we can make an educated guess as to what they are getting at.

Private language and public language is still the subject of much debate even today.