Hellacious Hermeneutics ... or "Why're we so serious about the Bible"?

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What you are saying is not biblical!
Please demonstrate your assertion.

What I am saying is what the NT clearly and unequivocally states... that God's favoring of Jacob and not favoring of Esau had nothing... absolutely nothing. . .to do with what they did in their lives.

How is that not Biblical?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Contrare. . .

He makes it irrefutabley clear in his statement there that
"to keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelationd, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me."

Why do you resist Paul in light of what he clearly states there (v.7)?

I had you for better than that.

Well, it could be. It's not my intent to resist Paul our downplay his importance. But then there is this:

[Rev 1:1-2 NKJV] 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants--things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified [it] by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.

[Mar 9:1 NKJV] 1 And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power."

We have no reason to think Paul was present when this was said, but John is a different story. And then Paul says he knew of a man who was caught up.

That doesn't tell us what Paul did or did not experience. He could have been the one, or also caught up similarly. It's just something I've mulled over.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Please demonstrate your assertion.
What I am saying is what the NT teaches. . .that God's favoring if Jacob and not favoring of Esau had nothing to do with what they did in their lives.
Well, it could be. It's not my intent to resist Paul our downplay his importance. But then there is this:

[Rev 1:1-2 NKJV] 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants--things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified [it] by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.
[Mar 9:1 NKJV] 1 And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power."
We have no reason to think Paul was present when this was said, but John is a different story. And then Paul says he knew of a man who was caught up.
That doesn't tell us what Paul did or did not experience. He could have been the one, or also caught up similarly. It's just something I've mulled over.
And Paul's statement of a thorn in his flesh to keep him from becoming conceited because of these exceedingly great revelations is just chopped liver?

On what sound basis do you resist it?

You assert:
Paul, as a believer, had a mind. That mind embodied an internal reasoning, informed by source material, history, the present state of the societies around him, and spirituality: the context of his reasoning.
And the point here being: Paul testifies that his doctrine did not come from his or any other man's mind, but only from Jesus Christ personally (Galatians 2:11-12).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Apart from qualified assistance, it's not.
After 10 years as a believer, I was called a walking Bible. I studied a lot. I had a crisis that shook me to the core. My ten years of study did not help. I knew a lot of what the Bible had to say, but it was as if none of it applied to me. The opposite is true, of course. God's word applies whether we know it or not or believe it or not. After I was helped through the crisis, I began to see that God's word is not enough on its own. We need to know the Living Word, Jesus, if we are to be steadfast. A simple example. I got deceived over an issue. I blamed God. The pastor spoke about God's love. In my heart, I said to myself that God didn't love me, otherwise I would not have been deceived. While I was thinking this, the pastor said, And that includes you, Peter." He had no way of kn owing what I was thinking. God knew. It took a while but I got over my dummy spit.

When we get to know God and Jesus, life becomes much simpler. Truth is a Person - Jesus. God's Way is a Person - Jesus. And God's Life is a Person. Yes, Jesus. It's good to know the book of the Lord. It's far better to know the Lord of the Book.
 
Upvote 0

misput

JimD
Sep 5, 2018
1,023
382
84
Pacific, Mo.
✟152,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for providing the quotes of these verses, Misput!

With these quotes, the first thing we realize in a hermeneutical frame of awareness is that these verses have been chosen for inquiry by an individual person, an English speaking person who lives in the 21st century in what is likely a Westernized nation. And in this case, that person is yourself (and myself, as well). So, I would ask my first hermeneutical question, "What about these verses has drawn your interests and which aspects of them do you want us to analyze more closely? Are we to look at all of the themes within them, or just one specific idea among the rest?"

:cool:
First, I think this is difficult scripture to understand and Peter said Paul said some difficult things to understand, LOL. Second, this is part of what is so called the Apostles creed which I find ridiculous not only because of the way it is usually interpreted but because the Apostles creed was written many years after their time. The main interpretation I question being Christ going to hell and preaching to those that were there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
And Paul's statement of a thorn in his flesh to keep him from becoming conceited because of these exceedingly great revelations is just chopped liver?

On what sound basis do you resist it?

You assert:

And the point here being: Paul testifies that his doctrine did not come from his or any other man's mind, but only from Jesus Christ personally (Galatians 2:11-12).

I think the evidence fairly strongly supports that Paul received true revelation, the nature of which is not clarified explicitly in much detail. But you make a good point that he claimed to have received it personally from Jesus. Still, I don't think that makes him comparable to Muhummad or Joseph Smith (both being persons who were said to have had messages given to them by angels). Here's why I think Paul is different:

[Eph 1:16-21 NKJV] 16 [ I] do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your [kardia/heart/understanding] being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what [is] the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated [Him] at His right hand in the heavenly [places], 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

[Rom 10:10 NKJV] 10 For with the [kardia/heart] one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

We see the same elements from above in this passage concerning a transformation:

[Rom 12:2-3 NKJV] 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what [is] that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. 3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.

Paul, in my view, was exercising senses beyond that of the natural man. It's not that anything was handed to or dictated to him, as though he were a mere messenger, but his mind was changed in a way through experience uncommon to the natural man. That being the case, in effect, he was able to reason as from understanding, and not as though he were like a Joseph Smith, who was said to have received messages (as far as I know).

If you're willing to go out on a limb here, there's more:

[Jhn 3:13 NKJV] 13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, [that is], the Son of Man who is in heaven.

[Gal 2:20 NKJV] 20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the [life] which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

[2Co 11:10 NKJV] 10 As the truth of Christ is in me ...

So, even though it is not explicitly written out for us in one place, we're given reason to believe that he was caught up to the throne of God, and that Jesus came down, providing Paul with that revelation of Himself, personally.

But since John 3:13 was given with the common understanding that Elijah had been caught up to heaven, wouldn't that mean Elijah was the Son of Man if nobody has been caught up to heaven except the Son of Man, who came down? But wait, there's more concerning the Son of Adam:

[1Sa 10:5-7 NKJV] 5 "... And it will happen, when you have come there to the city, that you will meet a group of prophets coming down from the high place with a stringed instrument, a tambourine, a flute, and a harp before them; and they will be prophesying. 6 "Then the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man. 7 "And let it be, when these signs come to you, [that] you do as the occasion demands; for God [is] with you.

See also:

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
After 10 years as a believer, I was called a walking Bible. I studied a lot. I had a crisis that shook me to the core. My ten years of study did not help. I knew a lot of what the Bible had to say, but it was as if none of it applied to me. The opposite is true, of course. God's word applies whether we know it or not or believe it or not. After I was helped through the crisis, I began to see that God's word is not enough on its own. We need to know the Living Word, Jesus, if we are to be steadfast. A simple example. I got deceived over an issue. I blamed God. The pastor spoke about God's love. In my heart, I said to myself that God didn't love me, otherwise I would not have been deceived. While I was thinking this, the pastor said, And that includes you, Peter." He had no way of kn owing what I was thinking. God knew. It took a while but I got over my dummy spit.

When we get to know God and Jesus, life becomes much simpler. Truth is a Person - Jesus. God's Way is a Person - Jesus. And God's Life is a Person. Yes, Jesus. It's good to know the book of the Lord. It's far better to know the Lord of the Book.
I see what you're saying.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think the evidence fairly strongly supports that Paul received true revelation, the nature of which is not clarified explicitly in much detail.
Fairly strongly?
How about absolutely and unequivocally?
But you make a good point that he claimed to have received it personally from Jesus. Still, I don't think that makes him comparable to Muhummad or Joseph Smith (both being persons who were said to have had messages given to them by angels).
Paul explicitly states he received it by revelation from Jesus Christ, and explicitly states it was not derived from "what he was taught" in Judaism. (Galatians 2:11-12)
You think that receiving revelation directly from God the Son is inferior to revelation from angels?
The first thing the book of Hebrews teaches is that Jesus is superior to the angels because he is God's Son. (Hebrews 1:4-14), which angels are not.
Here's why I think Paul is different:

[Eph 1:16-21 NKJV] 16 [ I] do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your [kardia/heart/understanding] being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what [is] the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated [Him] at His right hand in the heavenly [places], 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

[Rom 10:10 NKJV] 10 For with the [kardia/heart] one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

We see the same elements from above in this passage concerning a transformation:
(Rom 12:2-3 NKJV) 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what [is] that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. 3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.
Paul, in my view, was exercising senses beyond that of the natural man. It's not that anything was handed to or dictated to him, as though he were a mere messenger, but his mind was changed in a way through experience uncommon to the natural man.
His mind changed by what? Vapors?
It was the divine truths Jesus personally imparted to Paul which transformed his mind, and whereby he could also speak from experience of its power to do so.
That being the case, in effect, he was able to reason as from understanding, and not as though he were like a Joseph Smith, who was said to have received messages (as far as I know).
I think the NT shows that was not "being the case" in 2 Corinthians 12:1-8 and Galatians 2:11-12.
With what denominational doctrine of yours does it conflict that 2 Corinthians 12 and Galatians 2 must be denied?

There's a skunk in the woodpile somewhere.
If you're willing to go out on a limb here, there's more:
[Jhn 3:13 NKJV] 13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, [that is], the Son of Man who is in heaven.

[Gal 2:20 NKJV] 20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the [life] which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

[2Co 11:10 NKJV] 10 As the truth of Christ is in me ...
So, even though it is not explicitly written out for us in one place, we're given reason to believe that he was caught up to the throne of God, and that Jesus came down, providing Paul with that revelation of Himself, personally.
But you don't believe it.
Our "reason to believe" is that we are told that Paul was taken up to the third heaven; i.e., the throne of God (2 Corinthians 12:1-8).
And do you not know that "Son of Man" was Jesus' own appellation for himself!

Okay, we are into a demoninational doctrine here that appears to be unorthodox Christianity.
But since John 3:13 was given with the common understanding that Elijah had been caught up to heaven, wouldn't that mean Elijah was the Son of Man if nobody has been caught up to heaven except the Son of Man, who came down?
1) The Son of Man is Jesus Christ!
2) The domain from which the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, came down is higher than all the heavens (Ephesians 4:10), and to that domain Elijah did not ascend.
But wait, there's more concerning the Son of Adam:

[1Sa 10:5-7 NKJV] 5 "... And it will happen, when you have come there to the city, that you will meet a group of prophets coming down from the high place with a stringed instrument, a tambourine, a flute, and a harp before them; and they will be prophesying.
6 "Then the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you, and
you will prophesy with them and
be turned into another man.
7 "And let it be, when these signs come to you, [that] you do as the occasion demands; for God [is] with you.
And Saul was "turned into another man," changed into a different person in v.9, where "As Saul turned to leave Samuel, God changed Saul's heart and all these signs were fulfilled that day."

This is not orthodox Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Fairly strongly?
How about absolutely and unequivocally?

I'm not a rationalist, because I've observed that logic is essentially heartless, and can lead to evils.

Paul explicitly states he received it by revelation from Jesus Christ, and explicitly states it was not derived from "what he was taught" in Judaism. (Galatians 2:11-12)
You think that receiving revelation directly from God the Son is inferior to revelation from angels?
The first thing the book of Hebrews teaches is that Jesus is superior to the angels because he is God's Son. (Hebrews 1:4-14), which angels are not.

The argument is clear. A messenger, merely handed a message, has not been given understanding. Paul possessed understanding. Therefore, the evidence points to him not being a messenger that possesses none.

His mind changed by what? Vapors?

At this point this is my last post in response to your disrespect for the faith. If you don't take Paul's doctrine seriously enough to have a serious conversation, then I cannot take you seriously.

It was the divine truths Jesus personally imparted to Paul which transformed his mind, and whereby he could also speak from experience of its power to do so?

In what manner would you propose that that happened, and what do you think is meant by "revelation?"

I think the NT shows that was not "being the case" in 2 Corinthians 12:1-8 and Galatians 2:11-12.
With what demonimational doctrine of yours does it conflict that 2 Corinthians 12 and Galatians 2 must be denied?

What are you proposing that I am denying?

There's a skunk in the woodpile somewhere.
But you don't believe it.
Our "reason to believe" is that we are told that Paul was taken up to the third heaven; i.e., the throne of God (2 Corinthians 12:1-8).
And do you not know that "Son of Man" was Jesus' own appellation for himself!

Correct. Jesus did refer to Himself as the Son of Man. Paul teaches we are all one in Christ Jesus, and that the Church is the body of Christ.

Okay, we are into a demoninational doctrine here that appears to be unorthodox Christianity.
1) The Son of Man is Jesus Christ!
2) The domain from which the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, came down is higher than all the heavens (Ephesians 4:10), and to that domain Elijah did not ascend.
And Saul was "turned into another man," changed into a different person in v.9, where "As Saul turned to leave Samuel, God changed Saul's heart and all these signs were fulfilled that day."

This is not orthodox Christianity.

Why should I consider you to be an arbiter for orthodoxy? You're not presenting anything sensical much less respectful for things taken from Paul's doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

covid-19v1

Active Member
Dec 18, 2020
102
31
Louisiana
✟11,593.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For those wondering why I stopped addressing the counter arguments in this thread. A moderator removed my most recent post. I can't effectively engage in a discussion where my point of arguments get deleted. So I decided I won't be posting any more in this thread to address any arguments.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not a rationalist,
You can't understand lanaguage without "rationalism." And the word of God is in language for a very simple "reason."
because I've observed that logic is essentially heartless,
Then your observation is too limted to qualify you to speak on the subject.
and can lead to evils.
Yes, when it is of man only.
The argument is clear. A messenger, merely handed a message, has not been given understanding.
Who made that rule?
Paul possessed understanding. Therefore, the evidence points to him not being a messenger that possesses none.
Who said he was simply a messenger? He said he was an apostle, evangelist and teacher.
At this point this is my last post in response to your disrespect for the faith. If you don't take Paul's doctrine seriously enough to have a serious conversation, then
I cannot take you seriously.
One flimsy excuse is as good as another.
In what manner would you propose that that happened
I don't need to know how it happened to believe Paul's teaching that he received the gospel he preached by revelation from Jesus Christ (Galatians 2:11-12).
Paul tells us he spent three years in the desert after his conversion.
That would have been a good time for Jesus to teach him, and the same amount of time as he taught the apostles when he was on earth.
and what do you think is meant by "revelation?"
Precisely the meaning of the word "revelation" in Greek.
What are you proposing that I am denying?
Maybe you really don't see the difference, in which case I am being too hard on you.
But when you defend, rather than inquire, it appears to me that you have thought it through and are committed to it and I, therefore, expect more of you.

So for starters:

1) "the nature of Paul's revelation is not clarified expliciitly and in much detail."
Well, what do you think it is we find in all his epistles?

2) "Paul was not given direct revelation, rather his mind was transformed."
Then how would he know of the bride of Christ who in the two-in-one enfleshment of the marital union is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:31-32), if his revelation were not direct?
How would he know those in Chirst share in Christ's own inheritance, (Romans 8:17)?
How would he know that the saints are God's own inheritance and treasure (Ephesians 1:18; Psalms 33:12)?
How would he know that we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies now (Ephesians 2:6), etc. etc. etc?

What is your issue with Paul being given direct revelation?
It is denial of this which gives me to think this is doctrine of a denomination outside orthodox Christianity.
You could clear that up, if you chose to do so.
Correct. Jesus did refer to Himself as the Son of Man. Paul teaches we are all one in Christ Jesus, and that the Church is the body of Christ.
And you don't think this radical concept was given to Paul directly?
Why should I consider you to be an arbiter for orthodoxy? You're not presenting anything sensical much less respectful for things taken from Paul's doctrine.
You can clear up that issue of you choose to do so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
You can't understand lanaguage without "rationalism." And the word of God is in language for a very simple "reason."
Then your observation is too limted to qualify you to speak on the subject.

Yes, when it is of man only.

You apparently do not understand what is meant by rationalism.

Who made that rule?

It is self evident.

Who said he was simply a messenger? He said he was an apostle, evangelist and teacher.

It was an argument that I presented, and if you're not going to respond in a sensible manner, then there is no point in responding to you.

One flimsy excuse is as good as another.
I don't need to know how it happened to believe Paul's teaching that he received the gospel he preached by revelation from Jesus Christ (Galatians 2:11-12).
Paul tells us he spent three years in the desert after his conversion.
That would have been a good time for Jesus to teach him, and the same amount of time as he taught the apostles when he was on earth.

He says nothing about spending time with a physical incarnation of Jesus, if that's what you're implying. That would be a strange way of importing an idea to make your logic work, certainly not exegetical, and not very orthodox. Alternatively, one can make an attempt at extracting information about Paul's spiritual experiences as he provides it, and arrive at some semblance of an understanding of what he is communicating. This is what you're arguing against.

Precisely the meaning of the word "revelation" in Greek.
Maybe you really don't see the difference. For starters:

1) "the nature of Paul's revelation is not clarified expliciitly and in much detail."
Well, what do you think it is we find in all his epistles?

You should look up "explicit" and "implicit."

2) "Paul was not given direct revelation, rather his mind was transformed."
Then how would he know of the bride of Christ who in the two-in-one enfleshment of the marital union is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:31-32), if his revelation were not direct?
How would he know those in Chirst share in Christ's own inheritance, (Romans 8:17)?
How would he know that the saints are God's own inheritance and treasure (Ephesians 1:18; Psalms 33:12)?
How would he know that we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies now (Ephesians 2:6), etc. etc. etc?

What is your issue with Paul being given direct revelation?
It is denial of this which gives me to think this is doctrine of a denomination outside orthodox Christianity.
You could clear that up, if you chose to do so.
And you don't think this radical concept was given to Paul directly?

You can clear up that issue of you choose to do so.

Smoke and mirrors. You're not even responding to something I've said.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
First, I think this is difficult scripture to understand and Peter said Paul said some difficult things to understand, LOL. Second, this is part of what is so called the Apostles creed which I find ridiculous not only because of the way it is usually interpreted but because the Apostles creed was written many years after their time. The main interpretation I question being Christ going to hell and preaching to those that were there.

I kind of surmised that your interest in these verses in 1 Peter had something to do with the apparent allusion to "Christ visiting Hell."

So, with what we've briefly covered through our prior investigation into the nature of the 'Mark of Cain,' what do you think our first step would need to be in order to see if we can clarify what is being referred to in verses 19 and 20?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You apparently do not understand what is meant by rationalism.
It is self evident.
It was an argument that I presented, and if you're not going to respond in a sensible manner, then there is no point in responding to you.
He says nothing about spending time with a physical incarnation of Jesus, if that's what you're implying. That would be a strange way of importing an idea to make your logic work, certainly not exegetical, and not very orthodox.
Alternatively, one can make an attempt at extracting information about Paul's spiritual experiences as he provides it, and arrive at some semblance of an understanding of what he is communicating. This is what you're arguing against.
Actually, it was what I am arguing for.

And there we have it. . .the best we can do is arrive at "some semblance" of an understanding. . .

Not at my house. . .

I don't need hermeneutics to know that all the new divine truths of the NT, which Paul reveals, came to him from Jesus Christ personally giving them to him, just as Paul said they did.

That dog won't hunt.
.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It has been my ongoing experience over the years to observe that most people, Christian or otherwise, have felt a sense of chagrin about the topic of Hermeneutics and Exegesis, especially where the Bible is concerned.

This got me thinking today, and I thought to myself, "Self!" ...and you know you can never be too serious when talking to yourself, and I said further to myself, "...maybe all of this Hermeneutics and Exegesis stuff you've attempted to engage and to learn about these past few decades is all hocus-pocus and amounts to nothing more than sophistry with semantics and frail human words. Why believe any of this? Maybe it's all additive, or worse yet, incorrect, unneeded and otherwise superfluous to the Christian Life on the whole. I mean, you have the Holy Spirit just like all of these other fine people do who identify as Christians. Who needs anything more?"

And so, without further ado, I leave this thread as a space for all other Christians to tell me why I don't need Hermeneutics (or lessons in Exegesis), such as that which is all to briefly described but respresented by Jens Zimmeran in the video below, when engaging the (our) Christian Faith ...


Don't be shy! Go ahead! Rip Jens Zimmerman up one side and down the other ...
Hermeneutics was initially applied to the interpretation, or exegesis, of scripture, and has been later broadened to questions of general interpretation. (wiki)

The elephant in the room is definitely the interpretation of the scripture.

One rarely develops an interpretation of the scripture, one is taught an interpretation in the church environment.

Many theology books have an underlying interpretation at play, that the average reader may not even notice.

Debating in a Christian Forum is often a battle between differing interpretations underneath that topic of interest.

For example. if someone is trying to correct a member of the SDA. You will quickly discover that they follow a very specific interpretation. An interpretation identical to the Reformed interpretation of the scripture. With some addition and subtraction in certain areas. It is near impossible to make any headway given that they don't understand the scripture. In the way that you understand the scripture.

Hermeneutics is such a vast area of study that I don't think many folk have the time or inclination. To deeply study history, languages, cultures, semantics, e.t.c.
 
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Actually, it was what I am arguing for.

And there we have it. . .the best we can do is arrive at "some semblance" of an understanding. . .

Not at my house. . .

I don't need hermeneutics to know that all the new divine truths of the NT, which Paul reveals, came to him from Jesus Christ personally giving them to him, just as Paul said they did.

And all I've argued for is that Paul received revelation directly -- more directly than he would have by dictation of a message.

What's obvious is that you think Christianity was a new religion. This is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the NT, and writings of early church referring to itself as an "ancient faith."

A semblance of christianity, divorced from the true and living God, the creator, and inspired scriptures, is not my religion.
 
Upvote 0

misput

JimD
Sep 5, 2018
1,023
382
84
Pacific, Mo.
✟152,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I kind of surmised that your interest in these verses in 1 Peter had something to do with the apparent allusion to "Christ visiting Hell."

So, with what we've briefly covered through our prior investigation into the nature of the 'Mark of Cain,' what do you think our first step would need to be in order to see if we can clarify what is being referred to in verses 19 and 20?
The who would be Christ in the Spirit, what, would be preached to the spirits, where, in prison, when, in the days of Noah but how do we determine what the prison is referring too? One version says: now in prison, (when Peter was writing this). What is your take?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And all I've argued for is that Paul received revelation directly -- more directly than he would have by dictation of a message.

What's obvious is that you think Christianity was a new religion. This is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the NT, and writings of early church referring to itself as an "ancient faith."
A semblance of christianity, divorced from the true and living God, the creator, and inspired scriptures, is not my religion.
Good for you. . .
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: TheWhat?
Upvote 0