Martin Luther was correct

[CopticChristian]

As Martin Luther said:

“…I have often said that whoever would study Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we must be certain: no simpler speech has been heard on Earth than what God has spoken.”

Eisegesis v.s Exegesis

answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v24/n3/eisegesis

It appears to me that much of what we see as disagreement is related to this virus of the mind “Eisegesis”…

I wondered about when this practice of Eisegesis commenced. According to the article Eisegesis is the springboard for doubt. What thinkest thou?

 

[Cavaradossi]

As Martin Luther said:

Eisegesis v.s Exegesis

answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v24/n3/eisegesis

It appears to me that much of what we see as disagreement is related to this virus of the mind “Eisegesis”…

I wondered about when this practice of Eisegesis commenced. According to the article Eisegesis is the springboard for doubt. What thinkest thou?

Well, on one hand, we have the saying that all heresy comes from not being familiar enough with the scriptures, but on the other hand, I think the distinction between exegesis and eisegesis is bunk. Basically anything that disagrees with one’s own exegesis becomes eisegesis; that’s hardly a good system. I think this is why the idea of consensus patrem is so important: it is only from multiplicity that we can find any sort of truth.

 

[meltzerboy]

As Martin Luther said:

Eisegesis v.s Exegesis

answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v24/n3/eisegesis

It appears to me that much of what we see as disagreement is related to this virus of the mind “Eisegesis”…

I wondered about when this practice of Eisegesis commenced. According to the article Eisegesis is the springboard for doubt. What thinkest thou?

Don’t tell Orthodox Jews who spend their whole lives studying the Written Torah Law with the aid of the Oral Talmud Law and Kabbala mystical writing, that everything in the (Hebrew) Bible is crystal clear. There are passages of much complexity with respect to cultural, literary, and cross-textual context, language usage and translation, and literal and metaphorical meanings, which, on more than one occasion, have led to differing perspectives. Usually in such cases there is a majority and one or more minority views. To say that a lack of uniformity is due to a spiritual virus based on one’s own biases is, I think, a little naive. No interpretation can or should be totally neutral without any prior knowledge and tradition that serve to inform one’s reading and understanding of the text.

 

[Trebor135]

Well, on one hand, we have the saying that all heresy comes from not being familiar enough with the scriptures, but on the other hand, I think the distinction between exegesis and eisegesis is bunk. Basically anything that disagrees with one’s own exegesis becomes eisegesis; that’s hardly a good system. I think this is why the idea of consensus patrem is so important: it is only from multiplicity that we can find any sort of truth.

You aren’t saying that truth is determined by a scholarly head-count, are you? Please clarify.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, on one hand, we have the saying that all heresy comes from not being familiar enough with the scriptures, but on the other hand, I think the distinction between exegesis and eisegesis is bunk. Basically anything that disagrees with one’s own exegesis becomes eisegesis; that’s hardly a good system. I think this is why the idea of consensus patrem is so important: it is only from multiplicity that we can find any sort of truth.

You say bunk and appeal to consensu patrem. Ok.

Explain how you differentiate Exegesis, Eisegesis, consensus patrem in light of this article…

orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/2.aspx

St John of Damascus has defined the Tradition of the church as the “boundaries put up by our Fathers”.[1] Earlier even, St Athanasius of Alexandria spoke of the “Tradition from the beginning” and of the “faith of the universal church, which the Lord gave, which was preached by the apostles and preserved by the Fathers”.[2] These words express the essence of our faith as “apostolic”, “patristic” and “Orthodox”,[3] a faith rooted in holy scripture and holy tradition, an inseparable component of which are the works of the holy fathers.

Someone is reading Scripture and interpreting it.

Having established these interesting facts, in my work on St Symeon I first of all investigated in detail his approach to the Bible, i.e. his understanding of scripture and his **exegetical method. **

And in understanding the consensus patrum we rely on an exegitcal method of that father. It appears that we accept that the fathers did not use Eisegesis.

Your notion that Exegesis and Eisegesis are bunk do not make sense to me. I need teaching for it seems to me that in fact we are dependent on Exegesis of a Patristic Father as a part of understanding of Faith…Am I missing something here?..please educate me as to the bunk of Exigesis and Eisigesis as you see it…I wait…

 

[CopticChristian]

Don’t tell Orthodox Jews who spend their whole lives studying the Written Torah Law with the aid of the Oral Talmud Law and Kabbala mystical writing, that everything in the (Hebrew) Bible is crystal clear. There are passages of much complexity with respect to cultural, literary, and cross-textual context, language usage and translation, and literal and metaphorical meanings, which, on more than one occasion, have led to differing perspectives. Usually in such cases there is a majority and one or more minority views. To say that a lack of uniformity is due to a spiritual virus based on one’s own biases is, I think, a little naive. No interpretation can or should be totally neutral without any prior knowledge and tradition that serve to inform one’s reading and understanding of the text./

 

[CopticChristian]

You aren’t saying that truth is determined by a scholarly head-count, are you? Please clarify.

Consensus and a head count by Church Council has determined the canon of the Bible and other truths such as the Trinity.

 

[Trebor135]

Consensus and a head count by Church Council has determined the canon of the Bible and other truths such as the Trinity.

On what grounds do you deny the validity of the “Robber Council” held in 449 but uphold that of the Council of Chalcedon conducted in 451?

 

[CopticChristian]

On what grounds do you deny the validity of the “Robber Council” held in 449 but uphold that of the Council of Chalcedon conducted in 451?

I do not understand the source of your question. I never mentioned any particular council. How do you get here from my statement?

 

[Cavaradossi]

You say bunk and appeal to consensu patrem. Ok.

Explain how you differentiate Exegesis, Eisegesis, consensus patrem in light of this article…

orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/2.aspx

Someone is reading Scripture and interpreting it.

And in understanding the consensus patrum we rely on an exegitcal method of that father. It appears that we accept that the fathers did not use Eisegesis.

Your notion that Exegesis and Eisegesis are bunk do not make sense to me. I need teaching for it seems to me that in fact we are dependent on Exegesis of a Patristic Father as a part of understanding of Faith…Am I missing something here?..please educate me as to the bunk of Exigesis and Eisigesis as you see it…I wait…

I feel that it’s total nonsense because the only way we can tell if an explanation of scripture has been properly exegeted is by comparing it to tradition (mainly to patristic explanations of the same text). However, it is absolutely impossible to divorce patristic commentaries from the father who made them. St. Augustine’s exegesis of a passage of scripture might very well differ from St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis, because they are two different people, who spoke two different languages, and had two different traditions. Should we accuse one of them of eisegesis for disagreeing with the other? I don’t think so. We have to recognize that it’s impossible that someone should be capable of reading the scriptures without allowing his personality and life to color his interpretation (that is not to say that one of them cannot be wrong, but that on the level of the individual, it’s impossible to tell). Thee is no set of exegetical principles which will guarantee objectivity, because objective exegesis is impossible.

This is why the Church and concepts like consensus patrem are so important. Out of this multiplicity of opinions, we eventually see one truth which shines forth, for the Church is not a monolithic organization made up only of people who hold the same opinion, but an organization of people who all have a differing relationship with God, yet through the Church, one truth may be found.

 

[simspt]

As Martin Luther said:

Eisegesis v.s Exegesis

answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v24/n3/eisegesis

It appears to me that much of what we see as disagreement is related to this virus of the mind “Eisegesis”…

**I wondered about when this practice of Eisegesis commenced. ** According to the article Eisegesis is the springboard for doubt. What thinkest thou?

When the gnostics took the church’s scriptures and used them to support their cosmology and theology. St. Irenaeus cleary denounces their misuse of scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

**I feel **that it’s total nonsense because the only way we can tell if an explanation of scripture has been **properly exegeted is **by comparing it to tradition (mainly to patristic explanations of the same text). However, it is absolutely impossible to divorce patristic commentaries from the father who made them. St. Augustine’s exegesis of a passage of scripture might very well differ from St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis, because they are two different people, who spoke two different languages, and had two different traditions. Should we accuse one of them of eisegesis for disagreeing with the other? I don’t think so. We have to recognize that it’s impossible that someone should be capable of reading the scriptures without allowing his personality and life to color his interpretation (that is not to say that one of them cannot be wrong, but that on the level of the individual, it’s impossible to tell). Thee is no set of exegetical principles which will guarantee objectivity, because objective exegesis is impossible.
This is why **the Church **and concepts like consensus patrem are so important. Out of this multiplicity of opinions, we eventually see one truth which shines forth, for the Church is not a monolithic organization made up only of people who hold the same opinion, but an organization of people who all have a differing relationship with God, yet through the Church, one truth may be found.

This is a good start. I don’t relate to feelings. You feel as you say and that discounts much of what you say to me after that. On the other hand you say you think and then you get my attention.

You state that there is “proper exegesis”. Who decides that?

You state that there may be differences based on personalities and that they may be wrong. Is it possible that they disagree and are both correct? Provide me some examples where Chrysostom and Augustine disagree. Then the question is are we to depend totally on one Patristic rendition or as you say “consensus”…

Exigesis is not objective. Ok. You then state that the Church has a consensus and one truth. Tell me where this Church is that has the truth.