Principles of Interpretation - Hermeneutics

[Marilyn C]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

That was not an affirmation of their study and knowledge of Scripture.  It was a recognition of their authority to regulate the community.  That's what rabbinical authority is about.    Their works and their teaching cannot be separated.  And they exalted their traditions over the word of God.  Jesus was not affirming teachings.  I realize you need to make Hermeneutics look pharisaic, but you're barking up the wrong tree. 

I am not trying to make Hermeneutics look Pharisaic. However many problems do emerge when separates a part of God`s word from the rest.

 

[Marilyn C]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

yes, but that has nothing to do with hermeneutics.

Of course it does. It is scriptural hermeneutics which has Christ as the centre. Literary hermeneutics does not as it is not Christ focussed.

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

I am not trying to make Hermeneutics look Pharisaic. However many problems do emerge when separates a part of God`s word from the rest.

 

Yes, and you're violating your own principles.

When we relate Matt. 23:3 to the whole of Scripture, we find that Jesus never had anything positive to say about pharisaic teaching.  From the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus was correcting the Pharisees over their teachings and at one point even said, "You err because you don't know the Scriptures or the power of God." (Matt. 22:29)   Jesus never affirmed rabbinic teaching; he was always rebuking and correcting it.  He didn't, all of a sudden, have a change of heart in Matt. 23:3.  

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

Of course it does. It is scriptural hermeneutics which has Christ as the centre. Literary hermeneutics does not as it is not Christ focussed.

There is no such thing as "scriptural hermeneutics."   Paul was not addressing how they interpreted Scripture.   He was warning them to stay away from certain people and their teachings.

[Marilyn C]

15 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, and you're violating your own principles.

When we relate Matt. 23:3 to the whole of Scripture, we find that Jesus never had anything positive to say about pharisaic teaching.  From the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus was correcting the Pharisees over their teachings and at one point even said, "You err because you don't know the Scriptures or the power of God." (Matt. 22:29)   Jesus never affirmed rabbinic teaching; he was always rebuking and correcting it.  He didn't, all of a sudden, have a change of heart in Matt. 23:3.  

The Pharisees did know specific scriptures, but not in relation to the whole. They knew of the Sabbath day but not that Christ was Lord of the Sabbath.

[Marilyn C]

16 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

There is no such thing as "scriptural hermeneutics."   Paul was not addressing how they interpreted Scripture.   He was warning them to stay away from certain people and their teachings.

Of course there is bro. How do we know to place the Lord at the centre of our study? The Lord Himself tells us, as I wrote before. If we don`t have the Lord as God`s purpose or `focus` as you said then we can misunderstand what God is saying.

[Marilyn C]

Now bro Shiloh, I`m off to have tea, so have a good day.

regards, Marilyn.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

The Pharisees did know specific scriptures, but not in relation to the whole. They knew of the Sabbath day but not that Christ was Lord of the Sabbath.

The fact remains that Jesus did not affirm their teachings, ever.   You are trying, in vain, to paint Jesus words to mean something they didn't mean.   The Pharisees were Roman puppets, not faithful to the Scriptures at all.    Jesus never had anything good to say about their teachings, so you're still ignoring the reality of the matter. 

Just now, Marilyn C said:

Of course there is bro. How do we know to place the Lord at the centre of our study? The Lord Himself tells us, as I wrote before. If we don`t have the Lord as God`s purpose or `focus` as you said then we can misunderstand what God is saying.

No, there is no such thing as scriptural hermeneutics.   What you're talking about isn't hermeneutics.  It is the end result of hermeneutics.   You don't get to have your  own custom definition of terms.

[Marilyn C]

13 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The fact remains that Jesus did not affirm their teachings, ever.   You are trying, in vain, to paint Jesus words to mean something they didn't mean.   The Pharisees were Roman puppets, not faithful to the Scriptures at all.    Jesus never had anything good to say about their teachings, so you're still ignoring the reality of the matter. 

 

Hi Shiloh,

I agree that Jesus did not affirm the teaching of the Pharisees. The Lord exposed that they only read a part and did not relate it to the whole, OT.

`...when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, (Jesus), "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!" Then He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him; how he entered the house of God and ate the shewbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?

Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say to you that in this place there is one greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless.

For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.` (Matt. 12: 1 - 8) 

We can also just read a part of God`s word and not relate it to the whole, and thus be in error also.

Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No, there is no such thing as scriptural hermeneutics.   What you're talking about isn't hermeneutics.  It is the end result of hermeneutics.   You don't get to have your  own custom definition of terms.

Hi Shiloh,

When studying literature or scripture we both agree that we need to use what is called - hermeneutics. This we know is the study of principles and methods of interpretation.

Now we also both know that God`s word is different from just literature in the sense that the 66 books, although written by different people, all have God as the author, he inspired them to write what He desired. Thus throughout the 66 books there is one mind revealing His thoughts. Plus we know that God being omniscient, was able to write of things to come. Thus we see in the books of Moses the foreshadowing of Christ, with a variety of symbols, types and shadows, then in the historic books, the foreseeing of Christ, the philosophic section, the foreknowing of Christ and then in the prophetic section, the foretelling of Christ. Each part is connected to the whole. 

 However if we had 66 books from literature from different authors there would not be one mind behind them. One part would not necessarily have to line up with the other books.

Thus to interpret God word correctly we need to keep utmost in mind what the author - God, has intended. And this is -

`...having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Christ.` (Eph. 1: 9 & 10)

God revealed that to the Apostle Paul, and in turn we come to know God`s purposes also - by reading His word using correct interpretation methods, (hermeneutics) plus have the knowledge of WHY God wrote His Word. That is not an after thought but needs to be utmost in the mind as the focus from which all else is directed.

Marilyn.