bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: ugthemc on March 18, 2006, 08:56:50 PM
-
a parable?
"And in hell [Gk: ‘hades’] he [the Rich man] lift up his eyes, being in torment, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom" (Luke 16:23
I've heard that the above passage is "not headed in the Narratives as a parable". and if it was indeed literal, then Mrs. Smith's whole arguement of hell not being literal is false
-
It's definately a parable. Read Ray's article on Luke 16. He can explain it ten times better than me.
-
My brother asked me this same question just recently,
the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus IS a parable (as Ray's article rightly points out) my KJV actually has the heading " Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus". The parable tells us that the rich man (which IS ISRAEL) will now be in "hell" meaning "unseen" in favor by God. Like the last post said, if you want indepth then read Ray's article.
Mike
-
Almost everyone overlooks the following verses that appear just before the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man.
"And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided (scoffed at) him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; BUT GOD KNOWETH YOUR HEARTS: FOR THAT WHICH IS HIGHLY ESTEEMED AMONG MEN IS ABOMINATION IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." Luke 16:14-18
He knew they were covetous and he also knew they had also committed spiritual adultery. The Pharisees were priest of the Temple...Jesus was not suggesting that they were cheating on their wives...but cheating on God! There is not a hint of the Doctrine of Eternal Torment anywhere in the Law. But according to Josephus, in reference to the Pharisees, he says this: "They believe that wicked spirits are to be kept in an eternal imprisonment (eirgmon aidion). The Pharisees say all souls are incorruptible, but while those of good men are removed into other bodies those of bad men are subject to eternal punishment"
"And beside all this, between us and you there is a GREAT GULF FIXED: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." Luke 16:26
This "Great Gulf Fixed" mentioned in verse 26 comes from Greek mythology...NOT from the Law!
-
Why do you think Jesus incorperated Greek mythology into his Parable? That way they would see, yet not understand?
-
Why do you think Jesus incorperated Greek mythology into his Parable? That way they would see, yet not understand?
I believe he used their OWN beliefs against them to show their position according to those beliefs.
-
I see.
-
My brother asked me this same question just recently,
the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus IS a parable (as Ray's article rightly points out) my KJV actually has the heading " Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus".
Really? But what does the ancient greek text have it as? And where can I see for myself?
-
If you would like to see how it was written by comparing it with the Greek, download the program off of http://www.scripture4all.org/
Even the Greek does not come out and plainly say it's a parable, but we know it is a parable because of the similarites it has with the other parables, and because Jesus "spake ... unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them" (Mat 13:34).
-
Almost everyone overlooks the following verses that appear just before the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man.
"And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided (scoffed at) him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; BUT GOD KNOWETH YOUR HEARTS: FOR THAT WHICH IS HIGHLY ESTEEMED AMONG MEN IS ABOMINATION IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." Luke 16:14-18
He knew they were covetous and he also knew they had also committed spiritual adultery. The Pharisees were priest of the Temple...Jesus was not suggesting that they were cheating on their wives...but cheating on God! There is not a hint of the Doctrine of Eternal Torment anywhere in the Law. But according to Josephus, in reference to the Pharisees, he says this: "They believe that wicked spirits are to be kept in an eternal imprisonment (eirgmon aidion). The Pharisees say all souls are incorruptible, but while those of good men are removed into other bodies those of bad men are subject to eternal punishment"
"And beside all this, between us and you there is a GREAT GULF FIXED: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." Luke 16:26
This "Great Gulf Fixed" mentioned in verse 26 comes from Greek mythology...NOT from the Law!
To where in Greek mythology are you referring? Just a question...
My understanding is that the "great gulf" is actually defined in the Mishnah as well as certain pseudepigraphal books, not the least of which are I and II Enoch in which the prophet Enoch tours the Luminaries.
One more point...what point are you trying to make by declaring that the "great gulf" is derived from Greek mythology? I'm not sure of your stance there.
Brandon
-
ugthemc
In Luke you would see a pattern of PARABLES Jesus speaks unto the mass, not just one parable but many in succesion.
How can anyone come to a conclusion that as Jesus spoke one parable after another parable, he would then go off on a tangent and speak unto the masses one true story, just for good measure.
Jesus did not have to resort to all of a sudden change the subject matter to a non-parable story for the reasons that the parables themselves would not be understood, less Jesus explains them in private to his diciples.
Jesus like his Father is constant.
Rodger
-
My Bible says in the heading this is a parable but whether it is literal or not, it's not a place I want to be!
-
To where in Greek mythology are you referring? Just a question...
My understanding is that the "great gulf" is actually defined in the Mishnah as well as certain pseudepigraphal books, not the least of which are I and II Enoch in which the prophet Enoch tours the Luminaries.
One more point...what point are you trying to make by declaring that the "great gulf" is derived from Greek mythology? I'm not sure of your stance there.
Brandon
I guess I should have just said "Mythology" rather than Greek mythology.
The Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians all borrowed from each other and tried to improve and assemilate. It depends on from which source you read. Some call it a river...a lake...a sea...others just a space. It really all means the same.
The book of Enoch...if you've read it then you must know right off that it follows these discriptions in great detail. In places the book becomes almost caotic and makes little sense. The Luminaries are obviousely variations of Babylonian astrology that was very popular among the Jews during their exile.
One thing you may notice is that it uses the term "Spirit" as it is an immortal soul. A trademark of pagan writtings. But no wonder....it was written by Egyptian Jews and was very popular among the Pharasees in the time of Jesus.
In either case...the point I was trying to make was that the "Great Gulf Fixed" was not from the Law of Moses or the wisdom of the prophets, but from pagan sources. Sorry if I was unclear.
-
I guess I should have just said "Mythology" rather than Greek mythology.
The Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians all borrowed from each other and tried to improve and assemilate. It depends on from which source you read. Some call it a river...a lake...a sea...others just a space. It really all means the same.
The book of Enoch...if you've read it then you must know right off that it follows these discriptions in great detail. In places the book becomes almost caotic and makes little sense. The Luminaries are obviousely variations of Babylonian astrology that was very popular among the Jews during their exile.
One thing you may notice is that it uses the term "Spirit" as it is an immortal soul. A trademark of pagan writtings. But no wonder....it was written by Egyptian Jews and was very popular among the Pharasees in the time of Jesus.
In either case...the point I was trying to make was that the "Great Gulf Fixed" was not from the Law of Moses or the wisdom of the prophets, but from pagan sources. Sorry if I was unclear.
Just checking. Keeping you accountable to accuracy.
I agree with your statements...however, we must also accept that the "great gulf" is an image used by Jesus. We cannot discount its appearance just because it was not directly derived from the Tanakh. From there we have the problem of addressing precisely to what Jesus was referring when he used the imge of the gulf. Was he condoning such an idea or simply playing on the imagery of the day. In any case, you cannot possibly discard the image...its there and must be dealt with.
So, how do you interpret that passage?
Brandon
P.S. Oh, and you didn't address the fact that the "gulf" notion is described in the Mishnah, not simply derived from "pagan" sources.
-
So, how do you interpret that passage?
I stand by my original statements in light of everything else contained in the New Testament.
P.S. Oh, and you didn't address the fact that the "gulf" notion is described in the Mishnah, not simply derived from "pagan" sources.
I'm not really familiar with the Mishnah...please enlighten. :)
-
So, how do you interpret that passage?
I stand by my original statements in light of everything else contained in the New Testament.
I read your original statements; what I'm missing is the significance of your assertion that the "gulf" is the result of Jewish assimilation of pagan ideas. What point are you trying to make? Does this make the use of the image invalid or does it change the meaning? How are we to understand Jesus' understanding of Law and righteousness if we discount all that he says that is not explicitly derived from Torah or the Tanakh?
P.S. Oh, and you didn't address the fact that the "gulf" notion is described in the Mishnah, not simply derived from "pagan" sources.
I'm not really familiar with the Mishnah...please enlighten. :)
The Mishnah is rabbinical interpretation of the Tanakh. Rabbis would take a portion of scripture and then write a long, detailed commentary. For some groups who followed certain Rabbis, these interpretations were considered either on the level with the authority of Scripture (such as the writings of the Teacher of Righteousness at the Qumran community) or just less authoritative than the Scripture itself.
Brandon
-
a parable?
"And in hell [Gk: ‘hades’] he [the Rich man] lift up his eyes, being in torment, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom" (Luke 16:23
I've heard that the above passage is "not headed in the Narratives as a parable". and if it was indeed literal, then Mrs. Smith's whole arguement of hell not being literal is false
This passage is most certainly a parable.
That doesn't make Ray's exegesis of if correct; it just means that we should not base a solid theology of hell on this particular passage. It does, however, shed light on how Jesus viewed the afterlife as well as the residing places of souls prior to the resurrections of Revelation 20&21.
In the end the passage has no bearing on the belief in or against hell.
Brandon
-
I read your original statements; what I'm missing is the significance of your assertion that the "gulf" is the result of Jewish assimilation of pagan ideas. What point are you trying to make? Does this make the use of the image invalid or does it change the meaning? How are we to understand Jesus' understanding of Law and righteousness if we discount all that he says that is not explicitly derived from Torah or the Tanakh?
I have based my statements on the following points.
1. To whom he was speaking.....the Pharisees
2. What he said before the parable.
"And the PHARISEES also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, YE ARE THEY WHICH JUSTIFY YOURSELVES BEFORE MEN; but God knoweth your hearts: FOR THAT WHICH IS HIGHLY ESTEEMED AMONG MEN IS ABOMINATION IN THE SIGHT OF GOD" Luke 16:14-15
These statements from Jesus to the Pharisees leads me to believe that what ever he said from this point on would be directed at them.
3. The statement about Adultery
"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." Luke 15:18
I said that Jesus was speaking of "spiritual" adultery. I offer the following verses as support...
"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the LAW HATH DOMINION OVER A MAN AS LONG AS HE LIVETH? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an ADULTERESS: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." Rom 7:1-3
"Then certain of the SCRIBES and of the PHARISEES answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, AN EVIL AND ADULTEROUS generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:" Mat 12:38-39
These verses, along with the well documented history of the Jews straying from the Law and fornicating with other beliefs in the Old Testament is why I believe that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man was directed at those who Jesus was speaking to. The Rich Man being the Pharasees, Lazarus being "whom God helps". Strong #2976
The whole point of my post from the beginning was that everyone seems to overlook Luke 16:14-18 as support that Lazarus and the Rich Man is indeed a parable.
The Mishnah is rabbinical interpretation of the Tanakh. Rabbis would take a portion of scripture and then write a long, detailed commentary. For some groups who followed certain Rabbis, these interpretations were considered either on the level with the authority of Scripture (such as the writings of the Teacher of Righteousness at the Qumran community) or just less authoritative than the Scripture itself.
As I said, I had not heard of the Mishnah. If the "Gulf" mentioned is quoted in it, then I must take your word for it. However, I don't believe that Jesus was too fond of the work of the Rabbis of his time. There are many writtings that are a product of Rabbinical Judaism that are concidered "authoritative", such as Kabballah, which was a rabbinical interpretation of the Torah. This work turned out to be the basis for modern Satanism and was also around during the days of Jesus.
-
Interesting posts. I must agree with those who understand that it is a metaphor (parable).
Hell is also a metaphor for total destruction (netherworld) gone...forever.
Peace.
-
a parable?
"And in hell [Gk: ‘hades’] he [the Rich man] lift up his eyes, being in torment, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom" (Luke 16:23
I've heard that the above passage is "not headed in the Narratives as a parable". and if it was indeed literal, then Mrs. Smith's whole arguement of hell not being literal is false
This passage is most certainly a parable.
That doesn't make Ray's exegesis of if correct; it just means that we should not base a solid theology of hell on this particular passage. It does, however, shed light on how Jesus viewed the afterlife as well as the residing places of souls prior to the resurrections of Revelation 20&21.
In the end the passage has no bearing on the belief in or against hell.
Brandon
Brandon,
In making this statement...
It does, however, shed light on how Jesus viewed the afterlife as well as the residing places of souls prior to the resurrections of Revelation 20&21.
By saying this you are saying that Jesus was confirming the immortality of the soul. If the soul is immortal, then the following verses are a lie.
"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Eccl 3:19-20
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the SPIRIT shall return unto God who gave it." Eccl 12:7
"For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thank?" Ps 6:5
"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that day his thoughts perish." Ps 146:4
Immortality of the soul comes from the same pagan sources as the doctrine of eternal torment.
Immortality of the Soul in Jewish Encyclopedia Vol VI pages 564-566
"The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is...speculation...nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture...The belief in the immortality of the soul came to Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended."
Herodotus: "The Egyptians were also the first that asserted that the soul of man is immortal."
Plato: "The soul whose inseperable attitude is life will never admit of life is opposite, death. The soul is shown to be immortal and, since immortal, indestructable...Do we believe there is such a thing as death? To be sure. And is this anything but the separation of the soul from the body?"
Tertullian: "For some things are known, even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance is held by many...I may use, therefore the opinion of a Plato when he declared 'every soul is immortal"
I find it strange that Tertullian who was concidered to be the "Father of the Western Church", left the Church of Rome to join a cult called the Heterodox Montanists. I guess that some of these people who had a hand in forming the Church, wasn't so sure of their own beliefs.
-
exegesis = huge tool for satan to deceive.
It certainly has it's place, but man oh man, how many claim knowledge because of correct context.
(Joh 4:23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
(Joh 4:24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
(Joh 14:17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
(Joh 15:26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
(Joh 16:13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
(1Jo 5:6) This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
(1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(1Jo 4:6) We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
(Col 1:9) For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
-
exegesis = huge tool for satan to deceive.
It certainly has it's place, but man oh man, how many claim knowledge because of correct context.
(Joh 4:23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
(Joh 4:24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
(Joh 14:17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
(Joh 15:26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
(Joh 16:13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
(1Jo 5:6) This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
(1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(1Jo 4:6) We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
(Col 1:9) For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
Do you know what exegesis is? If you ignore or even downplay context as well as the delving into Scripture to uncover its meaning then you have no right to speak on Scripture whatsoever.
This is why authorities do not post on forums such as these. They find it a waste of time for the very reason that you posted above.
Brandon
-
exegesis = huge tool for satan to deceive.
It certainly has it's place, but man oh man, how many claim knowledge because of correct context.
(Joh 4:23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
(Joh 4:24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
(Joh 14:17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
(Joh 15:26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
(Joh 16:13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
(1Jo 5:6) This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
(1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(1Jo 4:6) We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
(Col 1:9) For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
I agree Steve.....but we must answer carnal questions with carnal answers.
-
I agree Steve.....but we must answer carnal questions with carnal answers.
May I ask how exegesis is a carnal thing?
Brandon
-
May I ask how exegesis is a carnal thing?
Brandon
When you seak a critical interpretation or an explanation of a Bible verse in the "Letter" of interpretation, in what other way can it be other than carnal?
-
Do you know what exegesis is? If you ignore or even downplay context as well as the delving into Scripture to uncover its meaning then you have no right to speak on Scripture whatsoever.
This is why authorities do not post on forums such as these. They find it a waste of time for the very reason that you posted above.
Brandon
Guess not? Does it take a seminary school for that? Or is that a cemetery school? I'm so stupid I can't tell the difference. Actually scirpture EXPLAINS scripture, and the LETTER OF THE LAW KILLS; whereas, the SPIRIT brings LIFE.
Here, I wonder if this silly little man can find out what exegesis is? Simple Google search: exegesis
Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') involves an extensive and critical interpretation of a text, especially of a holy scripture, such as of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Talmud, the Midrash, the Qur'an, etc. An exegete is a practitioner of this science, and the adjectival form is exegetic.
The word exegesis means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.
Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text. [1]
Although the most widely-known exegeses concern themselves with Christian, Jewish and Islamic books, analyses also exist of books of other religions.
Main article: Biblical hermeneutics
According to some forms of Christianity, two different forms of exegesis exist: revealed and rational.
Revealed exegesis considers that the Holy Ghost inspired the authors of the scriptural texts, and so the words of those texts convey a divine revelation
Rational exegesis bases its operation on the idea that the authors have their own inspiration, so their works result from human intelligence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of argue with carnal minded men about carnal minded things, I'd rather just let the Lord speak for me instead: Thus sayeth the Lord:
(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 3:19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Is that a good enough definition?
-
Do you know what exegesis is? If you ignore or even downplay context as well as the delving into Scripture to uncover its meaning then you have no right to speak on Scripture whatsoever.
This is why authorities do not post on forums such as these. They find it a waste of time for the very reason that you posted above.
Brandon
Guess not? Does it take a seminary school for that? Or is that a cemetery school? I'm so stupid I can't tell the difference. Actually scirpture EXPLAINS scripture, and the LETTER OF THE LAW KILLS; whereas, the SPIRIT brings LIFE.
Here, I wonder if this silly little man can find out what exegesis is? Simple Google search: exegesis
Exegesis (from the Greek ?????????? 'to lead out') involves an extensive and critical interpretation of a text, especially of a holy scripture, such as of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Talmud, the Midrash, the Qur'an, etc. An exegete is a practitioner of this science, and the adjectival form is exegetic.
The word exegesis means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.
Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text. [1]
Although the most widely-known exegeses concern themselves with Christian, Jewish and Islamic books, analyses also exist of books of other religions.
Main article: Biblical hermeneutics
According to some forms of Christianity, two different forms of exegesis exist: revealed and rational.
Revealed exegesis considers that the Holy Ghost inspired the authors of the scriptural texts, and so the words of those texts convey a divine revelation
Rational exegesis bases its operation on the idea that the authors have their own inspiration, so their works result from human intelligence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of argue with carnal minded men about carnal minded things, I'd rather just let the Lord speak for me instead: Thus sayeth the Lord:
(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 3:19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Is that a good enough definition?
Way to google it up there, bud.
Yeah, you got a fine definition of exegesis, but how you can call it carnal I still do not understand. Biblical interpretation is about understanding the text, the words used, what they meant to those who heard them and what they mean in light of other Scripture. Without those elements, our interpretations are seriously flawed. The Bible was written to a people in a time; if we ignore that, then we downplay the timing of God and wisdom of God in delivering His word at the time He saw fit. What about, "study to show yourself approved." How about loving God with all of your mind as well as everything else.
I guess I just really don't understand your rationale. It seems to me that you are claiming that those who engage in true exegesis are guilty of using their mind too much and not relying on the Spirit enough. However, pure exegesis is about looking at the whole of Scripture and understanding it in its historical and social contexts, pairing those understandings to find the deeper, universal meaning, and then applying that to our lives. It seems that if we are dealing with something as powerful and true as God's Word, we would want to understand it as deeply as possible.
Brandon
P.S. - When you look up a word in a lexicon or quote someone who has published some paper on a subject on which you speak, are you not advocating at least some form of scholarship - especially with regards to lexicons? It seems you have a double standard.
P.S.S. - Wherever you got your definition of "revealed" verses "rational" exegesis, they are wrong. Rational exegesis does not assume that the authors were under their own interpretation and therefore not inspired by the Spirit. Rather, rational exegesis is philosophically thinking through the words of Scripture and taking the claims and assertations to their logical end.
-
May I ask how exegesis is a carnal thing?
Brandon
When you seak a critical interpretation or an explanation of a Bible verse in the "Letter" of interpretation, in what other way can it be other than carnal?
1. What do you mean by "Letter?"
2. How do you define "carnal?"
Brandon
-
I googled it and the first link was from wikipedia when I typed exegesis.
-
I googled it and the first link was from wikipedia when I typed exegesis.
I must apologize. I have seemed really harsh in the past few posts. I don't mean to come off that way; that's the inconvenience and shortcoming of this form of communication. I just really want to understand where you are coming from.
Wikipedia tends to be a pretty good source for general information. Perhaps there is a branch of "rational exegesis" that believes what you read on Wikipedia, but the more conservative branches tend to use "rational exegesis" in the manner I described; at least that has been my experience.
Brandon
P.S. - Be careful "googling" for information; the internet is full of shoddy workmanship and interpretation, as well as shoddy scholarship.
-
broken
the internet is full of shoddy workmanship and interpretation, as well as shoddy scholarship
.
Your warning is so unbelievable, i do not know how to thank one such as you for bringing down this facade.
Well thank you very much for that bit of info, as i now feel a whole lot safer walkin the the streets of the internet.
If not for warnings like these, we would not be able to recognize this evil.
Rodger :wink:
-
broken
the internet is full of shoddy workmanship and interpretation, as well as shoddy scholarship
.
Your warning is so unbelievable, i do not know how to thank one such as you for bringing down this facade.
Well thank you very much for that bit of info, as i now feel a whole lot safer walkin the the streets of the internet.
If not for warnings like these, we would not be able to recognize this evil.
Rodger :wink:
Your sarcasm is unappreciated.
Brandon
-
neither is yours so get over your self already
Rodger
-
neither is yours so get over your self already
Rodger
Look, I made my apology to Steve. Let him answer for himself.
And please, resort to intelligent conversation, not belligerent belittling.
Brandon
-
well broken brando i would ...that is if you showed some intelect.
and not just your oat meal box exam score. :wink:
Rodger
-
well broken brando i would ...that is if you showed some intelect.
and not just your oat meal box exam score. :wink:
Rodger
First, I have no idea what I did to you to make you so belligerent toward me.
Secondly, I have not said anything to show that I lack in intellect.
Thirdly, with such personal, cold remarks without any constructive conversation, you're not making a very good case for yourself.
I'm just trying to have conversation here.
If you wish to discuss anything I'm open to conversation, but only in a civil, honest, humble manner.
Brandon
-
then why not open your mind instead and if you do not agree with other let the chips fall were they may.
no offense on my part, your not being fair with others here, you demand this or that. yet all that is asked of you is a bit of consideration.
is this a alot to ask from someone such as your self . or are you that above humility.
Rodger
-
then why not open your mind in stead and if you do not agree with other let the chips fall were they may.
no offense on my part, your not being fair with others here, you demand this or that. yet all that is asked of you is a bit of consideration.
is this a alot to ask from someone such as your self . or are you that above humility.
Rodger
I'm trying to be coniderate, but being "open minded" around here usually means accepting as absolute truth the doctrines that others believe here. I cannot do that. Open mindedness is simply about being open to the possibility that one's ideas are wrong, and I see none of that here. Should it be expected in return?
And what demands have I made? I simply ask for and expect defenses based on both Scripture and reason. That is not too much to expect in conversation. At least, I don't think it is. Am I wrong?
Brandon
-
broken brandon
open minded is not closing your self to another person perspective.
you want people to listen to your message why not do the same and hush and listen some times. if nothing gets through, simple thank the person and carry one with your ministry.
why be obtuse towards the person you are conversing with.
If your ministry carries sound doctrine then nothing can twart it right.
But if you, yourself go off on a tangent away from your ministry, becasue of some heated exchange, then your intentions, message and ministry are questionable are they not.
Rodger