a977ae No.855030
One of the main problems with Protestant exegesis is its use of the Historical-Grammatical method for the scriptures. This is not how the writers of the New Testament would have interpreted the scriptures, especially not in relation to the specific prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. The writers of the New Testament relied on Midrashic interpretations of the OT in relation to Christ, for them the scriptures held deeper levels of meaning that even the original authors may not have been aware of when composing the text. This method of interpretation is called Pesher. This is why, for example, John 19:28-29 says the scripture was "fulfilled" when Christ was offered the holy sponge, it is in reference to Psalm 69:21. A surface level reading of this text demonstrates nothing predictive, yet John speaks of it as being fulfilled in Christ. The OT was interpreted allegorically by the NT writers, as they were simply applying the hermeneutic methods of their day and found that Jesus Christ does indeed fulfill the OT. Jesus is the Old Testament as a human, the entire Old Testament is one big hint for Christ, and many of the Church Fathers employed this type of exegesis to scripture. This also why Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant debates often talk past each other, they are applying completely different methods of exegesis. Catholic/Orthodox use the more ancient method, whereas Protestantism relies on a newer more rationalistic approach to scripture which ends up negating much of what Christ does in the New Testament. It's also why, for example, Catholics and Orthodox consider Mary as a New Eve or Ark of the Covenant for example, they are employing this ancient method of Midrashic interpretation and imbuing the text with great meaning and significance and it is what the NT writers were doing in this first place, the Catholic/Orthodox method is just a continuation of this.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
60fc9f No.855031
Two things 1) Its not a strength to be comparing yourself to the midrash 2) "Typologies" are not the same thing as gnostic oral traditions nullifying the text as the midrash and talmud does, and furthermore Christians actually do believe in typologies without all that kind of stuff. Christ himself is and is represented by the ark of the covenant, for example. Comp. John 20:12 with Psalm 80:1 and 99:1. Matthew 2:15 shows us the type of Hosea 11:1. Matthew 2:18 gives us the type of Jeremiah 31:15. Matthew 2:23 contains the type of Isaiah 11:1. Hebrews 10:5 presents the type of Psalm 40:6. Etc.
None of that implies any kind of gnostic style of thought like pic related, or numerology, or gnostic gospels, etc.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8d32f8 No.855480
>>855030
In other words Catholics and Orthodox spend their energy contemplating the meaning of the scriptures as a whole rather than autistically kvetching about individual words and punctuation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3d1121 No.855680
>>855030
cringe.
One look at the medieval scholastics(Aquinas is the biggest example) will disprove your view
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
015d72 No.855712
>main problems with Protestant exegesis
ok im reading
>New Testament relied on Midrash
stopped reading
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.