e.r.m.
Church of Christ
In my first exegetical tool thread
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/exegetical-tool.180459/#post-4452111l0)
i forwarded a principal that any authentic major doctrine in the Bible not only has at least one explicit verse confirming it's existence, but as well the culture surrounding that teaching.
I liked what someone else said also
"I agree with you for the most part that most major points in the bible are made in several places in many ways..."
No major doctrine exists in a vacuum. No major authentic Biblical belief exists in only one spot in the NT, much less exclusively between the lines. This is a good way to distinguish authentic original Biblical teaching from false teachings that were developed later in history and retroactively attributed to the Bible, such as was done by Pope Gregory the Great in ruining Mary Magdelene's reputation.
In the next exegetical tool, I aim to demonstrate a certain type of innuendo or inference as false, giving us something else to eliminate in our search for the truth
I'll start with some examples
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him , that we may be also glorified together.
Mormons use this verse to say that since sometimes people inherit all of their predecessors stuff, so God's heirs "must" therefore inherent all of God's powers.
Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Catholics say that since the four beasts and the twenty-four elders carried the prayers to God in this verse, it "could have" meant people prayed to the saints, so then it "must" mean that people prayed to the saints back then.
Matthew 12:46-48 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. [47] Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. [48] But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Catholics say that "brothers" was used in various ways, such as Jewish brothers, brothers in the faith, etc., therefore He "must" not have been talking about his physical brothers, because Mary would then no longer be a virgin.
Matthew 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
The Greek word cross staurou can mean a "t/T" like cross or a stake. According to JWs, since it "could" mean stake, it therefore, "must" mean stake, since according to them Jesus wasn't crucified, but impaled with his arms straight up.
Luke 18:13-14 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. [14] I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Some from the by grace alone, through faith alone community say with this verse that this prayer "could have" lead to the accepting Jesus getting saved prayer, so it "must" be proof that this teaching lead to the widespread use of an accepting Jesus getting saved prayer in the NT church.
And a recent favorite,
John 2:19, 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. [21] But he spake of the temple of his body.
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Of course this "must mean" that a day means a thousand years in every instance the word "day" shows up after John 2:19, 21, and that in three days (3 thousand years) Jesus will resurrect the church. It must be so!
When things "could be" one way or the other, that is not evidence that IT IS that way.
The Bible never speaks of co-heirs with Jesus reaching Godhood. No one in the Bible ever speaks of praying to dead saints. In fact, it says the opposite,
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
The Bible makes direct reference to Jesus's biological siblings
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
They weren't talking of spiritual brothers.
The Greek word staurou only meant stake when talking about a fence. And there's overwhelming detailed historical evidence about perpendicular crosses.
There's nothing in the Bible showing that Jesus's followers actually modified the tax collector's prayer into an accepting Jesus getting saved prayer. And there's nothing in the Bible connecting the timing of Jesus's resurrection with the rapture.
The "it could be" argument that is often put on the table is not proof in and of itself. It must be corroborated by example or an explicit confirming verse. When it is presented in and of itself, then it carries no weight.
The floor is open.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/exegetical-tool.180459/#post-4452111l0)
i forwarded a principal that any authentic major doctrine in the Bible not only has at least one explicit verse confirming it's existence, but as well the culture surrounding that teaching.
I liked what someone else said also
"I agree with you for the most part that most major points in the bible are made in several places in many ways..."
No major doctrine exists in a vacuum. No major authentic Biblical belief exists in only one spot in the NT, much less exclusively between the lines. This is a good way to distinguish authentic original Biblical teaching from false teachings that were developed later in history and retroactively attributed to the Bible, such as was done by Pope Gregory the Great in ruining Mary Magdelene's reputation.
In the next exegetical tool, I aim to demonstrate a certain type of innuendo or inference as false, giving us something else to eliminate in our search for the truth
I'll start with some examples
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him , that we may be also glorified together.
Mormons use this verse to say that since sometimes people inherit all of their predecessors stuff, so God's heirs "must" therefore inherent all of God's powers.
Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Catholics say that since the four beasts and the twenty-four elders carried the prayers to God in this verse, it "could have" meant people prayed to the saints, so then it "must" mean that people prayed to the saints back then.
Matthew 12:46-48 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. [47] Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. [48] But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Catholics say that "brothers" was used in various ways, such as Jewish brothers, brothers in the faith, etc., therefore He "must" not have been talking about his physical brothers, because Mary would then no longer be a virgin.
Matthew 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
The Greek word cross staurou can mean a "t/T" like cross or a stake. According to JWs, since it "could" mean stake, it therefore, "must" mean stake, since according to them Jesus wasn't crucified, but impaled with his arms straight up.
Luke 18:13-14 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. [14] I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Some from the by grace alone, through faith alone community say with this verse that this prayer "could have" lead to the accepting Jesus getting saved prayer, so it "must" be proof that this teaching lead to the widespread use of an accepting Jesus getting saved prayer in the NT church.
And a recent favorite,
John 2:19, 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. [21] But he spake of the temple of his body.
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Of course this "must mean" that a day means a thousand years in every instance the word "day" shows up after John 2:19, 21, and that in three days (3 thousand years) Jesus will resurrect the church. It must be so!
When things "could be" one way or the other, that is not evidence that IT IS that way.
The Bible never speaks of co-heirs with Jesus reaching Godhood. No one in the Bible ever speaks of praying to dead saints. In fact, it says the opposite,
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
The Bible makes direct reference to Jesus's biological siblings
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
They weren't talking of spiritual brothers.
The Greek word staurou only meant stake when talking about a fence. And there's overwhelming detailed historical evidence about perpendicular crosses.
There's nothing in the Bible showing that Jesus's followers actually modified the tax collector's prayer into an accepting Jesus getting saved prayer. And there's nothing in the Bible connecting the timing of Jesus's resurrection with the rapture.
The "it could be" argument that is often put on the table is not proof in and of itself. It must be corroborated by example or an explicit confirming verse. When it is presented in and of itself, then it carries no weight.
The floor is open.
Last edited:
