Posted on 03/01/2015 4:54:44 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Now there's something I've never tried....lol.
It’s a shame that they’ve been led so far astray! I believe the words of Jesus as stated in the Bible. I’d rather follow them than a singular church. Jesus’ words are truth. Men twist words and meanings.
Sure there were, they just didn't live. See Jan Huss.
The issue is some churches do not apply exegesis to passages. We have Springfield Reformer on many occasions giving pleasant and constructive instruction on the use of direct metaphors in Jesus Christ's discourses. I have yet to see responses to those posts other than diatribes on Luther and changing the subject. I cannot replicate the style in which SF opines on this subject but will list the basics of proper Biblical exegesis:
1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.
Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.
Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.
2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.
So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.
3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.
The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.
4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.
5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.
And yes, context is very important.
One discourse..Arthur ..one discourse.. not repeated in any other gospel ... He also said the following
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Thank you... good post
LOL ..as opposed to Rominists that use "secular" sources ..LOL
LOL as opposed to Rominists using the handful of "infallibly " defined verses..
I must have missed that one in the manual...
You don't get reborn in water...You MUST repent before you can get born again...And yes, that's not the only thing you missed in the manual...
Before Luther...there was no such thing as a protestant.
Paul was the first Protestant...He was protesting the forerunners of your religion perverting the scriptures he was writing...You apparently missed that as well...
And if protestants believe only in the written word....doesnt that include the 39 books of the old testiment as well?
Absolutely...
Like Leviticus?
Believe every word of it...Obviously this is an admission that you don't believe it...
““If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
And that's exactly right because God said it...
...or do you pick and choose what written words to follow?
Wrong...Jesus picked what words we are to follow...
Well, for starters, you have zero idea who has what type of educational background. Online you can claim to be anybody or anything.
As far as we know there are no catholic priests on this board. Then again, maybe there are a lot of catholic priests on this board in addition to PhDs in ancient languages or possibly history.
Thank you, at initial glance some seem a little high, I will study this further.
When discussing Catholic Doctrine or Catholic dogmatic teaching it is appropriate to use Catholic Sources. Just as if I wanted to know what Calvin believed/ taught I would use his "institutes". When discussing historical events etc... it is appropriate to request a secular source.
I am getting more certain that you about to jump ship and swim the Tiber.
Putting quote marks around a statement infers that the poster replied to has made that statement.
Discuss the issues instead falsely attributing a statement to another poster.
“Protestant “churches” are after all daughters of the Catholic Church aren’t they.”
That makes you a daughter too. Go ahead now and deny being a Protestant. Let the usual Protestant anti-Catholic program tape begin.
“I am???”
Yep.
“I guess that beats having a person tell me that I’m too STUPID to read and understand the BIBLE!”
Ask your fellow Protestants if they believe in ‘soul sleep’ and they might say that is still a concern.
“Who claimed it was?”
No one. And it isn’t.
And where did he say we were to eat his body and drink his blood WITHOUT believing?
You want to know something? I never linked to any site so how does anyone know where I found the info. Frankly, I do not remember since I first found that info way back in the late 90’s but most of it was secular history sites. I remember one site had pictures of people being burned at the atake. I thought how can any Christian do something that evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.