Ccel: Genesis 2
A non-Agustinian hermeneutic by PigSP
- 8-28 by PigSP
- creative hermeneutics by tomgroeneman
- re:creative by PigSP
- Greek and Hebrew by tomgroeneman
- re:Greek and Hebrew by PigSP
- Another forum by hesed28
- Tampered manuscripts - sensus plenior by PigSP
- re:Greek and Hebrew by PigSP
- Greek and Hebrew by tomgroeneman
- re:creative by PigSP
- creative hermeneutics by tomgroeneman
- formed created man spiritually and physically through distress by hesed28
- Great correlation by PigSP
dump
re:Greek and Hebrew Submitted by PigSP on Sat, 2015-04-18 22:39.
Tom,
"I just do not see the connections you make between the hidden symbolic meaning of Hebrew letters and words and their relation to the message of the New Testament."
I'm sorry for not explaining it better. It would help me if you could ask questions to help me bridge the gap.
"But I am also familiar with ....
Sorry Tom. I am not a part of any of the groups or movements you have mentioned. I am merely sharing observations.
My purpose is nothing more than to share Christ and him crucified from all of the scriptures.
Perhaps another study could be started with the purpose of examining the sensus plenior directly and properly. How would someone who does not know how to read sensus plenior know sensus plenior when they saw it? Therein is the basic problem of trying to explain it.
Sorry for not addressing the Septuagint here, but it has little connection to the shadows of Christ in Genesis, except to say that they get lost when the Hebrew is translated. Perhaps another time and forum.
Tampered manuscripts - sensus plenior Submitted by PigSP on Sun, 2015-04-19 07:19.
If the sensus plenior exists as is proposed, where a second narrative exists just under the surface of the literal, then any tampering to the literal would foul the sensus plenior as well.
I do not observe SP in the Apocrypha. I do not see it in the Gospel of Thomas, nor in the Book of Enoch.
If you have particular portions of scripture you believe have been tampered with, I would be interested in examining it closely to see if there is evidence to the fouling of the underlying narrative.
This does not work for NT manuscripts. The SP is handled referentially. In Israel, the prophets were sometimes asked to do public 'dinner theater'. They would build a sand castle and know it down, or marry a prostitute, etc. This was a form of prophecy for Israel.
The bulk of OT SP is that the events recorded are like dinner theater, as prophecy of Christ. The OT can be divided into Acts, and withing the Acts are smaller vignettes of Christ.
In the Gospels, it appears that Jesus comes across a prophetic dinner theater in play. So he plays a role in it, and then there is a miracle.
The letters use references to SP in propositional statements almost incidentally as though they were commonly known. They are used as the source of doctrine, which source can be identified in the OT.
The interpretation of the use of SP in the gospels would be likely be divisive because of the doctrine of kenosis, since the CC has be so free in declaring people heretics.
It appears to me that kenosis is like closing your eyes. When you close your eyes, you do not become blind, you simply choose not to see. When Christ emptied himself, he closed his eyes to his deity. That should not be a doctrinal problem, but I am sure that someone will label it a heresy.
It appears that Jesus, living fully as a man, chose not to use his omniscience, but discovered who he was through the scriptures (in the SP). Then as he saw dinner theater in play, participated in it to show that he understood his role in the cross and was willing to participate. Then the Father would reward him with the miracle to encourage him toward the cross.
So the SP is not a deeply rooted in the NT as it is in the OT. But then it does not need to be. Mt 5:18 on the protection of scripture does not apply to the NT. It applies to 'the law'. So it may be more difficult to use SP to determine manuscript tampering in the Greek.
2.23 man Submitted by PigSP on Mon, 2015-04-27 14:24.
man Two words are used for 'man': adam אדם and iysh איש. man:adam אדם is of the earth/flesh... man: iysh איש is of the spirit.
Compare the feminine ground:admah אדמה and woman: ishshah אשה.
man:adam אדם was taken from ground:admah אדמה woman:ishshah אשה is taken from man:iysh איש.
This prefigures the Spiritual birth of the church from the death of Christ.
