Hermeneutics vs. "Herd-meneutics"

[Phoneman777]

I don't think that is what the word means. It actually is used in several places of making something known, not encrypting it in symbols.

For instance:

John 12:32-33 LITV
(32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to Myself.
(33) But He said this, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.

"lifted up" was to them as we would say, go to the chamber, for us oldsters, or "their gonna stick a needle in your arm!"

Jesus was communicating how He would be killed. The words seems to be about letting people know things.

Much love!
mark

Nah, "lifted up" is clearly a "symbol", a "sign", a "metaphor" for crucifixion, which is a known punishment. "As Moses lifted up the serpent..."

 

[Phoneman777]

You seem gung-ho in insisting that it ought to be translated 'church' against the better judgment of scholarship, (NASB; ESV; NKJV, NIV, AMP etc. etc.).

You believe the Critical Text MSS is "better scholarship" than the Reformation's Textus Receptus?

 

[prism]

All of the variations are synonyms. Let's be honest about this and drop the agenda.

Ok! But I'll leave it at this, the ekklesia in the NT is not the same as the ekklesia in the OT, just as my 'house' is not the same as your 'house'...a different entity altogether. Have a nice day.

 

[Dave L]

Ok! But I'll leave it at this, the ekklesia in the NT is not the same as the ekklesia in the OT, just as my 'house' is not the same as your 'house'...a different entity altogether. Have a nice day.

This is not true. The church exists anytime two or more believers unite. Whether in the OT or in the NT.

 

[prism]

You believe the Critical Text MSS is "better scholarship" than the Reformation's Textus Receptus?

The textual manuscripts are one thing, the scholarship is another. Both are on my side of the issue. The KJV may be good, but it is not the final inspired translation or is its set of manuscripts. Or are you one that holds to the KJV only?

 

[prism]

This is not true. The church exists anytime two or more believers unite. Whether in the OT or in the NT.

Thanks for your 'opinion'. Obviously we don't agree on this matter.

 

[Dave L]

Thanks for your 'opinion'. Obviously we don't agree on this.

Not unless you are willing to can your Dispensationsalism.

 

[prism]

Not unless you are willing to can your Dispensationsalism.

I don't 'can' 'truth' when I see it.
How about your amillennial replacement theology? LoL Goodbye.

 

[Dave L]

I don't 'can' 'truth' when I see it.
How about your amillennial replacement theology? LoL Goodbye.

You cannot provide one direct quote from scripture for ANY dispensationalist futuristic claims. It's all false prophecy.

 

[Copperhead]

Since Christ abolished circumcision, nothing remains to make one a physical Jew or member of Israel in the biblical sense.

So then, there is no Hebrew people that are distinct from the Ekklesia?

 

[marks]

There is not real problem with that as long as one uses the scripture to define what the symbols / figures / metaphors mean. Usually they are defined within the passage itself. When it is not, then usually how it is defined is in the OT. The HS is a stickler about defining things early on in scripture and usually the Law of First Mention comes into play. Not always, but mostly.

That's just it! I'm running into this left and right here.

All these things are defined in Scripture - Scripture to interpret Scripture - but so many want to interpret it according to their personal revelations from God, or God's revelations to some other "spiritual leader" or such.

But none of it carries any authority if it's not from the text itself and they are driving me nuts!

Over the decades on these forums, I've learned this. The more literal a person interprets Scripture, the more likely they are to hold to the same sorts of views. The less literal a person interprets Scripture, the more likely their view will diverge in all manner of directions.

Thank you for a breath of fresh air!

The parables are a great example! Jesus asked the disciples how they would understand any of the parables if they didn't understand the parable of the sower.

Different people respond differently to the gospel.

And so in the parable of the mustard seed . . . it grows bigger than is natural . . . birds nest in it's branches . . . they were with us, but not of us . . .

If we just take it for what it says, then it all makes sense, in the very Words God said. No redefinining, claiming special revelation, just reading the Bible.

Much love!
Mark

 

[Copperhead]

Mark, the problem usually lies in cutting oneself from the guide rope of the OT.

The Torah is quite clear that nothing can be established outside the testimony of two or more witnesses. The Bereans gave us that model and the HS commended them for it. They searched the scriptures (OT) daily to see if what Paul (NT) was true. For any doctrine to be established, it has to have evidentiary support in both the NT and OT. Only those things that were specifically called "mysteries" (previously unrevealed concepts) in scripture are allowed to violate that standard.

And it is failure to follow the Torah prescription and Berean example that leads to a lot of disagreement. And one is not allowed to play George Orwell "1984" word games and have established word meanings change on the fly.

 

[marks]

Nah, "lifted up" is clearly a "symbol", a "sign", a "metaphor" for crucifixion, which is a known punishment. "As Moses lifted up the serpent..."

Lifted up was an idiom.

Look at the other uses of the word. All are about making something known, not concealing it.

Much love!
mark

 

[Dave L]

So then, there is no Hebrew people that are distinct from the Ekklesia?

Not in a biblical sense. When Jesus abolished circumcision, that generation died off with nothing to replace them. Circumcision made one a physical Jew or Physical member of Israel.

 

[prism]

You cannot provide one direct quote from scripture for ANY dispensationalist futuristic claims. It's all false prophecy.

Fine, and it seems you cannot tolerate the opinions of others but have to keep attacking them as if you are some sort of doctrinal savior. lol
Again. Good bye and thanks for your opinions.

 

[Dave L]

Fine, and it seems you cannot tolerate the opinions of others but have to keep attacking them as if you are some sort of doctrinal savior. lol
Again. Good bye and thanks for your opinions.

[removed] a Dispensationalist without one scripture that directly states what you say, God would approve of my tolerance.

 

[prism]

[removed] Dispensationalist without one scripture that directly states what you say, God would approve of my tolerance.

I'll let God decide that.

 

[Copperhead]

Not in a biblical sense. When Jesus abolished circumcision, that generation died off with nothing to replace them. Circumcision made one a physical Jew or Physical member of Israel.

What about the physical sense? It would seem there has to be some sort of physical Hebrews left to acknowledge their rejection of Yeshua and petition for His return.

 

[CoreIssue]

What about the physical sense? It would seem there has to be some sort of physical Hebrews left to acknowledge their rejection of Yeshua and petition for His return.

Every apostle and Jesus made it very clear Gentiles are not physical Jews.

The body of Christ has two heirs, Israel and church.

The Old Testament Jewish believers are not church, but they are body of Christ.

Israel under the future new covenant to the houses of Judah and Israel are not Gentiles. They will be part of the body of Christ just as the Gentiles Saints will be.

There is a big distinction between a physical Jew and a physical Gentile.

 

[Copperhead]

Every apostle and Jesus made it very clear Gentiles are not physical Jews.

The body of Christ has two heirs, Israel and church.

The Old Testament Jewish believers are not church, but they are body of Christ.

Israel under the future new covenant to the houses of Judah and Israel are not Gentiles. They will be part of the body of Christ just as the Gentiles Saints will be.

There is a big distinction between a physical Jew and a physical Gentile.

I think you might have misunderstood me. Hosea 5:15 seems to make the point. Yeshua affirmed Hosea in Matthew 23:37-39.