| bio | website | sensusplenior.net |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 7 months |
| seen | Jan 9 at 23:08 | |
| stats | profile views | 90 |
I am in my senior term at the Seminary of the Wilderness. My first ten years were spent as bi-vocational pastor/evangelist in Utah preaching of Christ how I knew best and trying to improve by learning theology from Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Baptist and other sources. The second ten years were spent as a BVP/E and discovering that I didn't know what I thought I knew and reading the Bible without outside influence. At the beginning of the third ten I started seeing Christ in the OT, and tried to figure out how and why. I intend in the fourth ten to figure out how to communicate what I learned last term. After that I might be useful for something.
My bias in approaching the Bible is that I believe that it exists in a form today sufficiently intact to be considered infallible. That apparent contradictions are intentional riddles designed to guide us in focusing on different aspects of Christ. That sensus plenior exists in a form which is discernible in a verifiable, and reproducible manner. And that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.
|
Nov 16 |
comment |
Definition of Greek γενεά (genea) Heck, even in precisely defined languages (as in software) you can still have multiple meanings by overrides. ;-) |
|
Nov 16 |
comment |
Definition of Greek γενεά (genea) Studies in early childhood learning show that punning and riddle are critical for developing the use and understanding of language precisely because words have more than one meaning. Children who can only comprehend one meaning are considered stunted in development. It is doubtful that there is only one right interpretation even if you were speaking in the same language. But since words in different languages include different subsets of meaning, when translating it is even more unlikely that there is a single 'right' meaning in English. |
|
Nov 16 |
comment |
Why is Israel referred to with a male pronoun in Jeremiah 31:10? It should also probably include why Jeremiah says all men will become pregnant. His changing number and gender of pronouns is an intentional use of words to focus our attention on something specific. |
|
Nov 16 |
comment |
Why is Israel referred to with a male pronoun in Jeremiah 31:10? An answer might include why it is not feminine Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. |
|
Nov 16 |
comment |
What else can “Fifteen cubits from above” in Gen 7:20 mean? The word in question is used Ex 25:21, 26:14, 36:19 39:31, 40:19-20, and many more which only make sense in the conventional rendering. |
|
Nov 16 |
comment |
Why did the Law of Moses tolerate polygyny (polygamy) but not polyandry? Sorry Israel/church as the bride of Christ is ancient Christian doctrine, not personal condescension. Israel and Judah are described as the bride in Jeremiah.-- Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. --God's restoration after the adultery is taught in Hosea. Christian's see Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy (the husband). Some might consider it condescending to say that Jesus never will be the husband. |
|
Aug 22 |
comment |
What is “Midrash” and how does it relate to Christian principles of hermeneutics? @Jack "The awareness of general meaning is the secret of Jacob's dream. The stones, previously beneath his head, come to life and merge to become one, as lifeforce from the head of Jacob permeates them with meaning." inner.org/hebrew-letters/letters-words-light.php The rabbi interprets it as many stones which became one. |
|
Jul 25 |
comment |
What are the strict set of rules followed by sensus plenior? Several have attempted to criticize SP by using FFA as though SP is responsible for the failure of FFA, when their own supposed practice of SP produces FFA because they have not followed the rules. If anything, their attempts should demonstrate the necessity of the rules to produce verifiable results. |
|
Jul 25 |
comment |
What are the strict set of rules followed by sensus plenior? It is apparent that I have been unable to communicate the importance of the rules, since several people have asked me to explain SP without putting an emphasis on them. That cannot be done. The rules separate free-for-all allegory from SP. |
|
Jul 15 |
comment |
Catholic explanation of the “spiritual sense” of Scripture? or are layers and ways analogous? |
|
Jul 14 |
comment |
Are there scriptural standards by which a hermeneutic method can be measured? It is the unspoken principle of popular typology where darkness is evil and leaven is sin and 6 is the number of man. |
|
Jul 14 |
comment |
Are there scriptural standards by which a hermeneutic method can be measured? Where do you get this: ""If Scripture directly interprets a symbol, then that is the meaning it has everywhere in Scripture, with few exceptions." or is it just a hypothetical example? |
|
Jul 14 |
comment |
Are there scriptural warrants for using the rule of first mention? Any one of these will do. I don't know where it first appeared bu tlots of people mention it. google.com/… |
|
Jul 13 |
comment |
Does the Gospel of Thomas help in reproducing the hermeneutical methods of the apostles? Aren't you first interpreting Thomas as though it is literal in order to produce your conclusion? The question is really, Do the apostles and Thomas read the OT in similar fashions, and how does Thomas help us reproduce the apostle's elusive hermeneutic? |
|
Jul 13 |
comment |
Does the Gospel of Thomas help in reproducing the hermeneutical methods of the apostles? The last saying you quote is parallel to this: Mt 23:13 ¶ But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Thomas uses the "kingdom of heaven" as a reference to the esoteric knowledge. |
|
Jul 12 |
comment |
Why did the Law of Moses tolerate polygyny (polygamy) but not polyandry? The word for covenant contains the word for 'create' as in 'cutting' and also 'to eat' The first covenant of marriage was that God cut the bride from the side of Adam and together they ate. Again God caused Abram to sleep and cut the sacrifices of the covenant. Marriage is the cutting of the Son from the Father and mother to cleave to the wife... all pictures of Christ and the cross. |
|
Jul 12 |
comment |
Why did the Law of Moses tolerate polygyny (polygamy) but not polyandry? But the bracelets were not required to be married, only the union of the flesh. |
|
Jul 12 |
comment |
Why did the Law of Moses tolerate polygyny (polygamy) but not polyandry? The only thing that comes close to a vow in an ancient wedding is that the man gave the woman bracelets indicating that it was not an unclean union. (An empty vessel without bracelets is unclean). Tamar was given bracelets even though Judah thought she was a prostitute. This is part of the source for Paul's teaching that union with a prostitute is marriage by becoming one flesh. |
|
Jul 12 |
comment |
Why did the Law of Moses tolerate polygyny (polygamy) but not polyandry? Some wedding when the brides nakedness is covered and she has to be washed from the blood of her violence. It suggests that this is no ordinary wedding, but metaphor for the covenant the God made with Israel. It is still Israel's covenant though she had no part in making it. It is based in the character of God and He took the oath which cannot be broken. This probably ought to go to a chat room. |
|
Jul 12 |
comment |
Why did the Law of Moses tolerate polygyny (polygamy) but not polyandry? 8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. 9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. |