Christians... riddle me this!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Are you mocking me or agreeing with me? I honestly cannot tell, that is a honest question.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

A path is a way. Oftentimes you see the two words joined together as in "pathway". They are synonyms.

You are taking one verse using the word "way" (John 14:6) where Jesus is talking about himself, and because you take the word "way" as being synonymous with "path", you (incorrectly) assume that the "path" saying (Matthew 7:14) is talking about Jesus being the path.

And it is all about Jesus, He is the Way/path/gate to the Father. Absolutely nothing else.

There are some places in the New Testament talking about a Way (or, path, both being possible translations of the Greek word, hodos).

2 Peter 2:15
By forsaking the right path they have gone astray, because they followed the way of Balaam son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness,
2 Peter 2:21
For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, having known it, to turn back from the holy commandment that had been delivered to them.
Acts 18:24-27
Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus. He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately.
Acts 24:14
I worship the God of our ancestors according to the Way (which they call a sect), believing everything that is according to the law and that is written in the prophets.
Matthew 22:16
They sent to him their disciples along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are truthful, and teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You do not court anyone’s favor because you show no partiality.
Luke 20:21
Thus they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach correctly, and show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
Mark 12:14
When they came they said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are truthful and do not court anyone’s favor, because you show no partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
1 Thessalonians 3:11
Now may God our Father himself and our Lord Jesus direct our way to you.
1 Corinthians 12:31
But you should be eager for the greater gifts. And now I will show you a way that is beyond comparison.
Matthew 21:32
For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
Acts 19:23
About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way.
Acts 13:10
and said, “You who are full of all deceit and all wrongdoing, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness – will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?
2 Peter 2:2
And many will follow their debauched lifestyles. Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.
Mat 7:13,14
“Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Rom 3:16
ruin and misery are in their paths,
Jam 1:8
since he is a double-minded individual, unstable in all his ways.
Act 14:16
In past generations he allowed all the nations to go their own ways
John 14:6
Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

only one of which is talking about the Way being Jesus, where it is also the only one by the author of the Gospel of John, who makes a point of having Jesus saying I Am statements, the last verse that I quoted being one of those, so its meaning is different from every other use of the way in the NT.
Trying to apply that meaning of the word to any other of the NT Way sayings is "bad hermeneutics".

reply to post by wildtimes


I'll make it a point to try and remember you don't like that term, again it's just the way I was raised and it kinda stuck. Some women I had dated in the past didn't like me to say "yes ma'am" when answering a question and stuff and it was hard to keep from doing it at first with them. Sorry.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


This will be my last reply to you if you really are done with me, but it seems to me that maybe I started making a little too much sense so in order to combat that youstarted to ignore me, because you can't think of anything to say to counter me.

Just saying. Good luck to you.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Have you heard the term "Expositional Constancy" before?

I guess I have my answer.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

This will be my last reply to you if you really are done with me, but it seems to me that maybe I started making a little too much sense so in order to combat that youstarted to ignore me, because you can't think of anything to say to counter me.

Just saying.

Good luck to you.

edit on 29-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Check your ego. I'm done arguing with you for the reason I clearly stated.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Ego? I'm just trying to clarify why you decided to start ignoring me, I was enjoying the debate.

How is learning something new arrogant?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Ego? I'm just trying to clarify why you decided to start ignoring me, I was enjoying the debate.

How is learning something new arrogant?

No need for clarification, I plainly stated my reason. Do you know the difference between "Exegeses" and "Eisegesis"?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

There have been terrorist attacks and shootings in the name of atheism. Let's not forget about that.

edit on 29-7-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Hey, I have to disagree with this statement. If you're making the point that there have been some wars waged where the parties involved are atheists then, of course, I'd agree with you. However, your statement was that there have been wars waged in the NAME of atheism and I have to disagree with that for the following reason (I stated above but you may not have read the lengthy post I made, which is fair enough)

I would contend that there has never been a single killing in the name of atheism in the literal meaning of the word (a- without, theism belief in god) because you cannot have no motivation for killing (I.e. without belief IN something) and any killings by those actively AGAINST religion would fall under ANTI-theism (anti- against, theism belief in god).

To clarify; a- theism is simply a word to describe someone who has no belief in god... It's not possible to kill because of NO belief... If you are killing because you don't like religion and you want to rid the world of religion then you are ANTI religion or ANTI-theist and because you HAVE a belief that religion should be eradicated.. Of course, those people exist, they can also be said to be atheist (as they have no belief in god) but they cannot be said to be killing as a result of their non-belief in god but for the belief they hold that religion is bad or should be eradicated.... It may seem like I'm being picky but I think it's an important point. Do you understand where I'm coming from with this post? Sorry if its a bit waffly but I don't know how else to explain...

OP has asked a flawed question.

There has never been ANY proof of a heaven/hell/afterlife etc.

If we discover evidence that supports that theory then it will be worth contemplating.

Until then, we might as well talk about last nights epic field hockey game between the unicorns and the fairys.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I do now, google is such a great thing isn't it? I have learned something else new.

Exegesis is basically interpreting the text literally while eisegesis deals with not reading it literally and trying to find the hidden meaning within it.

You were talking about hermeneutics though, which encapsulates all forms of interpretation, including those two, so yes I am using hermeneutics in a way. You still have refused to consider my interpretation, you saying you are not trying not to understand proves that.

Again, how is learning something new arrogant? You said the epitome of arrogance is what I did, which was learn something new.

reply to post by raiders247


Look around you, that is your evidence that there is a heaven and hell.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


No, Eisegesis has nothing to do with trying to find the hidden meaning of the text:

Eisegesis (from Greek ε ς "into" and ending from exegesis from ξηγε σθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discover-able meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

From Wiki.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


My current surroundings include a bed, a CPU monitor, a window, and various other small electronic devices.

No heaven or hell in my line of sight, sorry.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Eisegesis (from Greek ε ς "into" and ending from exegesis from ξηγε σθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discover-able meaning of its author , eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

If that is the case then I am an exegenesist, read the part I bolded, that describes exactly what I am doing. I am drawing out the meaning of the text in accordance to what I believe is the context and I have found the hidden meaning.

Your opinion is that you should take what the bible says as literal, my opinion is that I shouldn't. Neither one of us 'knows' what context it is written in. In what way we interpret the context of the bible is our opinions, not fact, as you tend to believe.

My theory fits in accordance to what the context of the bible is, in my opinion.

TextAlso, it sounds like a load of nonsense you tell children to make them behave. Oh, wait... But in all seriousness, I will accept that the explanation you have given is just a long list of metaphors that have yet to be decrypted; but if you mean for us to take all of that literally, then good luck.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You may be right. Not saying I know everything. Just that if I am wrong then I guess I really lose nothing. Whats to lose? I die regardless. Same as you. Not offended at all. Have a good life.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Nope, when a person interprets a text in accordance with their beliefs/presuppositions that Eisegesis. If you want to or don't understand any text there are an abundance of exegetical commentaries available. Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on the Bible is the best and most respected.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Nope, when a person interprets a text in accordance with their beliefs/presuppositions that Eisegesis. If you want to or don't understand any text there are an abundance of exegetical commentaries available. Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on the Bible is the best and most respected.

By your own definition you are an eisegenesist. You base your interpretation on your beliefs and presupposition.

Where have you found any hidden meaning with the way you interpret the bible? Taking the bible literally, word for word, is not interpreting it or drawing out any hidden meaning, that is repeating it. If you are not interpreting it that means yourself are not using hermeneutics.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Nope, when a person interprets a text in accordance with their beliefs/presuppositions that Eisegesis. If you want to or don't understand any text there are an abundance of exegetical commentaries available. Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on the Bible is the best and most respected.

By your own definition you are an eisegenesist. You base your interpretation on your beliefs and presupposition.

Where have you found any hidden meaning with the way you interpret the bible? Taking the bible literally, word for word, is not interpreting it or drawing out any hidden meaning, that is repeating it. If you are not interpreting it that means yourself are not using hermeneutics.

Absolutely not. Anytime I find the exegesis of the text doesn't align with my ideas and presuppositions I always consider my presuppositions and former interpretation wrong. Ive have to alter quite a few doctrines over the years and even left my mother and sister's church over a few doctrines.


From above:

… eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.