From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Apr 22 1998 - 01:16:45 EDT
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:27:18 -0700 email@example.com writes:
>Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>> I am not sure how one's theological perspective here has any bearing
>> whether AGAPAS and FILEIS are to be taken synonymously. I agree that
>> often our theology does affect our exegesis - we can't escape
>> Scripture with Scripture, or at least our interpretation of other
>> Scripture - but, what theological bias affects the outcome here?
>Simply our view of the similarities and differences and their
>relationship to each other and the subsequent meaning we then assign
>to this passage [of AGAPAS and FILEIS].
Huh? I think you misunderstood my question. I certainly was not asking
how one's theological perspective generally affects his interpretation.
I was asking specifically how one's theology in Jn 21:15-17 affects his
interpretation of the meaning of AGAPAS ... FILEIS. Someone had said
this and it seemed to be suggesting that my interpretation stems from a
particular theological persuasion. I would still like some elaboration on
>Another interesting tense note ~ Almost the whole of this passage is
>in the present indicative, so we really do it a disservice to be
>translating 'Do you love me?' etc. It is present imperfect 'Are you
>loving me' and the response is not an imperative, but simply the
>factual 'You are feeding...' Peter does not need to be told to do the
>feeding, he needs to know WHEN he IS DOING it.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken on this. BOSKE and POIMAINE are not
indicatives; they are present imperatives.
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:32 EDT