>>4024872

If you suppose that scriptures were lost (like Thomas or Q) you will find excuses to believe it.

If you presume that nothing was lost, yuo can actually learn something about the hermeneutic they used to read the OT. Jesus had obviously taught them to read the scriptures in a way that was unfamiliar to them. He had to point out in scripture where it said he has to die and be resurrected,

So Mark was written first as a collection of the teaching of Peter. At that time they understood the historical happenings and looked for literal prophesies for them. He began the events with the preaching of John.

Matthew wrote 10-15 years later and reflects what they had learned during that time. H uses new tool to interpret the OT and pushes the start of events to Abraham.

Luke wrote 10-15 years later and includes additional learning from the OT in how Jesus fulfilled scripture. He was able to push the beginning back to Adam.

John, writing 10-15 years later, was most proficient in reading scripture and pushed the beginning of events to Genesis 1:1. (and even before).

They were taught how to read scripture by Jesus who said the keys to the kingdom (teaching) were the pictures of the cross in the OT. Find them and you find the center of the teaching of all the scriptures.

Paul understood the mystery which was hidden from the beginning, but chose to preach only Christ and him crucified to the Greek church. They did not learn how to read the OT the way that Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, James, and Paul did.

Today, modern Greek theologians (descended through Catholic and Protestant lines) still cannot read teh OT the way the NT authors did. Some go so far as to say the NT authors would fail their Bible classes for misappropriating scripture. (search sensus plenior NT author use of OT scriptures for discussions).

It is the differences between the gospels which reveals the hermeneutic of the NT authors. The added amterial reveals the methods of interpretation that they used as they became more proficient in its use.

The Greek churches presume that the NT authors got magic knowledge, when the authors themselves focused on studying and teaching.

One need not be a mystic, prophet, nor apostle to read the hidden mystery of Christ. They are hidden in childish riddle.

Follow these guides:

1. It all speaks of Christ. Not nations, not fortunetelling, not endless numeric patterns which have no meaning.

2. when something is a metaphor it is always a metaphor and is always the same.

3. Outside sources are not required. Don't make historians into apostles.

4. A hidden doctrine is revealed by a plain doctrine. They are in agreement.

5. The square text is the original language of the Hebrews. Why would they write their most sacred texts in the language of their enemies? That's as stoopid as saying the Mormon American Indians wrote in reformed Egyptian.

6. Hebrew Letters derive their meaning from the strokes, they combine to form the meaning of the words. Adam came from the ground (Adamah) and is made of the blood (dam) and spirit (A - Aleph)

7. there are 28 letters, not 22. And each consonant has an attached vowel. it is not vowel-less.

And for the Rabbis: When you see the white stone (Holy ab-ben), say 'water-water' (He is the living Torah in heaven and earth). You will see Christ everywhere.

Seek and you shall find.

>>4446504

Jesus said it all spoke of him. To have any other center for interpretation misses the point.

>>4446927

The mysteries hidden in the OT all concern the cross. It was sweet and bitter, it was a great day and a dreadful day, it was the Tree of Life and the Tree of Death where men learned to declare good and evil for themselves, making themselves to be gods and enemies of God.

Jesus was righteous on the cross yet was made to be sin. The hints you see are fulfilled when you chase them to the cross.

The woman is the church… though guilty as the prostitute by being an enemy of God, there is no report of a woman's stomach swelling as a result of the test.

She was always seen as pure in the eyes of her husband.

Same with the church. though we are sinners, Christ has made us Holy.

It wasn't a magic trick, but a dinner theater of how God treats his people. In Christ there is not condemnation. (even though we ARE guilty).

If the test was ever applied to a guilty woman, it was an act of forgiveness. It gave her a new start with her husband.

>>4443035

Bingo… Notable.

The church did not give us scripture. The NT is the interpretation of the Old Testament in light of Christ and the cross. It was written byor on behalf of faithful servants who were eye-witnesses.

>>4581002

>>4581002

You are a git. Of course many words we use derive from Greek. Using the word Hermeneutics to mean the interpretation of language does not make the interpretation of language occult.

You use hermeneutics to interpret language. You are just too ignorant of the formal practice to know that you do.

The 'Word' did not just suddenly show up in the NT. John is interpreting Ge 1:1 in John 1:1-4.

Bara, translated 'created' is the son 'bar' who spoke and ceated teh heavens and the earth 'a'. Because God spoke when he created, even modern rabbis admit that bara is also understood as the Word which created.

Bara ברא is in bereshith בראשית so John says 'In the beginning was the word". Bara is next to elohim, so John says "and the Word was with God". Bara is the Son who created, so John says, "and the Word was God."

Now when God said 'אמר' 'Let there be light'. He created light by the lamb 'אמר'. Said (which is also 'word') is the same word as 'lamb'.

When John the Baptist said "Behold the lamb of God" some heard him say "Behold the Word of God."

John did not invent the usage of the Word to refer to Jesus, he got it from the OT., and merely tried to explain it to the Greeks.

–

His name

The first unspeakable name of God comes from the invisible and silent aleph at the beginning of Ge 1:1. The letter derives its meaning from teh strokes that form it. א is formed by יוי which would be pronounced something like 'ee-oo-wee' similar to Yahweh.

Yahweh is the name God told Moses to use; he was told to say it. His name hidden in the aleph is unspeakable because the aleph is a silent letter, meaning "God spoke and created the heavens and the earth" (Its primordial meaning is 'creation by separation'). It is invisible at the start of Ge 1:1 because when God spoke and created the heavens and the earth, there was no one there to see or hear him do it.

His name Yahweh was known before God gave it to Moses, but by the reputation (shem means both 'name' and 'reputation') of Yahweh, he was not known. Yahweh means 'creator of calamity' (י-הוה) by which Pharaoh would soon know him as he caused the plagues to come upon Egypt.

Elohim means 'God separated from man by ignorance אל-ה-ים

Yashua is Yaweh with a 'sh' in the middle, meaning 'Yahweh with a marriage in his heart'. It also is a close pun to Yashuach, meaning 'God humbled' speaking of his incarnation, and fulfilling the prophecy of Immanuel 'God with us'.

Why do you compare translations to try to make a point other than ignorance? If you want to know the meaning of a Hebrew word, it comes from the combination of the meanings of the letters which form it.

See the hermeneutic of 'sensus plenior'

>>4455888

Good observation. If a symbol is not the same everywhere it is not a good symbol.

Leaven is 'teaching' . There is the teaching of God, which forms his kingdom, and the teaching of the Pharisees which we were warned to stay away from.

This explains why it can be use differently.

Otherwise it is up to some man to tell you when it means one thing or the other. It is generic teaching, and the context tells you if it is good or bad.

Jesus was the untaught teacher. They got rid of the old teaching before Passover (a symbol of the cross) in order to prepare for the new teaching of the cross. Jesus said, "You have heard it said… but I say".

If you believe it means different things different places you are practicing free-for-all allegory. There are no controls on that.

>>4460904

Under the hermeneutic of sensus plenior, everything Jesus said has a demonstrable OT source.

The Lord's prayer, for instance, is an application of Psalm 23. If you don't bother to research and understand that, you are simply lazy, and claim that it was original to Jesus.

>>4579079

Poor logic. "If God does not show it to the most ignorant or rebellious, he is not God."

He said Seek, search, study, ask.

Look at Acts 12.

Herod had vexed the church, but he had also vexed Christ.

Paul and Jesus were both arrested before Passover.

They were both put between two.

They were both poked in the side.

The light shown in both places.

There were three barriers to escape: two sets of guards and a gate, two days in death and a stone.

The gate and stone opened themselves.

Jesus saw Mary, and Peter went to mary's house.

Both women ran to tell the disciples.

Both were told that they were crazy.

When they finished visiting with the disciples, both went to another place.

The mystery of Christ hidden in the literal historical is not plain to the most ignorant, unwilling and rebellious.

The whole of the OT is written that way, always with a picture of Christ just under the surface.

Acts 12 is lecture notes from the teaching of the apostles. It is not intended to be understood with out teachers. But once taught, it is plainly seen by all.

The 'secret glasses' to see the mystery are available to all. Few put them on.

See sensus plenior

>>4463727

>Why else do we celebrate the birth of their pagan sun-god ad "Christmas?"

Well.. Jesus said that the bread of Passover/last supper represented his body given for us. It is a symbol of the cross. Eating is a metaphor for learning, so we eat in remembrance of him.

Bread is formed from the seed of grasses. It is ground and baked, both symbols of tribulation.

He learned obedience by the things he suffered.

The seed is called the Word of God in the parables. But Jesus is the Word of God, so he is the seed. He is even called the seed of the woman in Genesis.

The ancient prophecy says that the grass was given to the cattle to eat. Those ignorant of prophecy read that literally and think God had to tell us that cattle eat grass. Doh.

So at Christmas, we put the seed of the grass, destined to be the bread, in a feeding trough surrounded by cattle (sheep representing us) as a promise of the cross.

It is a celebration of the same cross as we have in baptism and communion. Pagans may have adopted various meanings, but the original source for Jesus being the Word is Gen 1:1, The Seed is Gen 3. He fulfills prophecy and I celebrate it at Christmas.

Careful when you start judging his people unjustly.

>>4453151

>Due to you not knowing the scriptures, no surprise your response sounds like generic babbling.

You do not address the topic. Is ad hominem the best you have?

Hebrew 10.1 The law, having a shadow of the good things coming….

If you cannot interpret the 'shadow' of the law, you cannot interpret scripture.

Jesus fulfilled the shadow of the law of the Nazarite, the Leper, the murderer and the adulterer. Until you can explain how, I suggest you lurk more.

>>4453165

>The NOTABLE part is how void of God's knowledge and word you are. Good job

I am irrelevant. You can do better than continued ad hominem attacks.

The Greek word used for 'scripture' simply means 'writings'. It does not mean 'Magic writings'. The NT is valuable because it contains the teaching of the Apostles who were taught by Jesus, but forgot what he taught, and then they were reminded of what he taught by the Holy Spirit.

The first church did not need the New Testament because the apostles taught from the Old and from their memory of what Jesus had done and from the hermeneutic he taught them to use to read the OT.

They interpreted the OT in light of their memory of what Jesus had done.

The scriptures that Jesus referred to were the OT, which had been collected over time and kept in the temple. When they were in captivity, the Holy things were made common. The scriptures became available more widely.

A set was found when the temple was restored and carefully copied and guarded until the time of Christ. We know what the scriptures are and need no church council to tell us.

This does not mean the writings of the apostles are not valuable. But they must be read in light of Greek misunderstandings of Hebrew.

The 'mustard seed' is the 'bruised' seed referring to the seed of the woman in Gen 3. The Greek sounds like the Hebrew.

Agape is a Hebrew word meaning 'the combatants' Agape love is the love you give your enemy with no expectation of return. While we were sinners and enemies of God, Christ died for us. The Greek sounds like the Hebrew.

Mammon is a Hebrew word meaning 'the believing ones'. You cannot serve God and self. The Syriac sounds like the Hebrew.

>>4595395

Apparently you can't read English either.

The New Testament authors forgot what Jesus taught, but were reminded by the Holy Spirit. ←See this: INSPIRED.

Now you show me in scripture where I am required to believe magic words, which weren't defined to be magic until hundreds of years later.

You have a tradition that says John couldn't read the Hebrew Genesis and needed a magic word to get 'Logos'. I prefer to read the word itself. Which of us doesn't believe the word?

You prefer to believe the tradition of a church that lost it's first love: Deified Mary.

Welcomed the Judaisers: adopted Jewish ritual.

Practiced the doctrine of Balaam: Compromise with governement and flesh.

And Conquered the laity : Nicolaitans.

Furthermore they killed their enemies : defined by a mere disagreement of doctrine, rather than loving them; further demonstrating that they had no respect or understanding for the word of God.

If I am a heretic to you, I am happy to be.

>>4595638

sensus plenior is the 'expert' term for what Paul calls the 'mystery' and which would be easy to read if you understood Hebrew as a little child; playing riddles.

>>4595640

>>4595395 should have been

>>4595358

>>4595358

Nothing I have said denies scripture. My examples are of the Greek imposition of meaning on the scriptures. It still says mammon and agape, it is your tradition in the meaning that makes it wrong.

>>4595395

If Christ was not struck with the rod, then he did not die for sin and you are still condemned.

He bore our sins. It was not an illusion.

>>4596234

You have not demonstrated that 'scripture' refers to anything other than 'writings'.

Do you claim that all 'writings' are God-breathed and therefore mine are as well?

Where did you get a list of writings which are considered magic? If mine are not. (which is not a claim I make)

And again you ignore the affirmation that the Apostles were inspired to teach. Are you intentionally ignoring my affirmations of such inspiration? My claim is that the Greek interpretation of such writings is in error.

You have no basis to claim any canon except from a corrupt church who murdered people and conquered the laity. You have only tradition. Whereas I can prove the interpretation of NT doctrine by the OT. Same as Paul did.

You would extrapolate my claim that the NT must be read in context of the OT as a denial of some Christian standard of inspiration that Christians can't even agree upon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration

And based on that squishy definition you are willing to declare me a heretic and start some fires for the BBQ. Again, I am unimportant. Fire away.

Let me say it plainly so that you cannot misunderstand except by choice.

NT doctrine is derived from OT prophecy and is proven by it. Nothing Paul or the other NT authors said does not have it's origin in the OT.

The corrupted gentile church has enforced a cartoon version of Christianity upon the church in order to maintain control. The Gentiles did not want to be Jewish and so they asked for and got "Christianity-lite" knowing only Christ and him crucified and ignoring the deep mystery of Christ hidden from the beginning.

Your ignorance of OT sources for NT teaching is not an excuse to call everyone a heretic who does not believe what you parrot from your corrupted church.

Now I claim everything in the NT has an OT source. You claim they got it magically. My claim can be validated. Yours can only be parroted in blind faith.

Have fun with that. And if you are too lazy to discern the teaching of Christ from the previous posts, you do not deserve an answer to your continuing ad hominem attacks.

Consider yourself ignored.

>>4596285

For others:

>The New Testament authors forgot what Jesus taught

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

>which weren't defined to be magic until hundreds of years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Clement_of_Rome

As you go through the various collections, be sure to label those church fathers as heretic who don't believe in our modern canon.

>You have a tradition that says John couldn't read the Hebrew Genesis

He got Logos from Philo rather than Gen 1:1 according to your Greek traditions

The rest are history… do your own sauce.

>>4596781

English is not your strong suit. The holy Spirit reminded them.. not necessary if they remembered.

You assume Paul cited your beloved Greek philosophers because you impose Greek mythology on the Bible and are too lazy to learn Hebrew.

Your church said that the Greek Septuagint, a mere translation of the original Hebrew, was more reliable than the original Hebrew.

No wonder you parrot the Greek philosophy and myths rather than study the source in the Hebrew OT.

You are too lazy to even research the source referenced above.. <<4593283 But make claims I don't know the source of John's Logos. No sauce, just attacks.

I guess you are a lazy muhPhilo shill.

>>4597164

Copy and paste rather than think?

Which church father said that the Greek plagiarized the wisdom of the Hebrews. Clement?

So you simply copy the Greeks. lol point made. Thanks.

You have made apostles out of Greek authors and elevated Greek philosophy rather than accept the wisdom of the Hebrew scriptures.

lol

Most excellent!

>>4597390

You would rather believe that Paul copied Greek philosophers… and call this inspired,l than he properly read teh OT in light of Christ.

Who is the pagan here?

>>4597721

>>>4597164

They both are responses to >>4593283

lousy linking does not make one schizo ;)

The Greek church claims inspiration for the NT authors as they claim the authors were inspired to copy Greek philosophers, who they say plagiarized Hebrew wisdom.

But call you a heretic if you say they went straight to the Hebrew source lol

Paul taught the Bereans who validated his doctrine against the OT scriptures they had. They did not check him against Seneca and Philo, and would have run him out of town if he had made the claim that the Greek philosophers were his source.

Dang I couldnt get that link right either lol

>>4597142 and the long string of copy paste.

>>4598019

I have been teaching Christ and the cross, and that Paul taught Christ and the cross from the OT. Are you a moron? Do you not believe that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek? Obviously you are not in Christ. Your question is irrelevant.

You choose to make the discussion about me rather than the subject. I find it ponderous that you insist upon some label so you can extrapolate to some straw-man argument. Check your Greek logic… that's a fallacy and I wont play into your game.

You have not answered the Hebrew source for Logos. You have not demonstrated any lies, you have merely made ad hominem attacks.

>>4598080

You dont read or respond to what you have..

>>4597913 answers all you quotes of Greek philosophers. Your God has to copy from them in order to inspire his apostles.

You still have not answered the Logos from Ge 1:1 Yet insist, by implication that I must be a Jew even though I am affirming that Jesus is the WORD Logos, derived from Amar, and bara rather than your APOSTLE PHILO.

>>4598156

The 'Word' did not just suddenly show up in the NT. John is interpreting Ge 1:1 in John 1:1-4.

Bara, translated 'created' is the son 'bar' who spoke and ceated teh heavens and the earth 'a'. Because God spoke when he created, even modern rabbis admit that bara is also understood as the Word which created.

Bara ברא is in bereshith בראשית so John says 'In the beginning was the word". Bara is next to elohim, so John says "and the Word was with God". Bara is the Son who created, so John says, "and the Word was God."

Now when God said 'אמר' 'Let there be light'. He created light by the lamb 'אמר'. Said (which is also 'word') is the same word as 'lamb'.

When John the Baptist said "Behold the lamb of God" some heard him say "Behold the Word of God."

John did not invent the usage of the 'Word' to refer to Jesus, nor did he get it from Philo, he got it from the OT., and merely tried to explain it to the Greeks.

And for this I am called a heretic by one who elevates Philo Above Genesis!

>>4598308

I understand that is the popular belief. You ignored the Hebrew evidence that he got it from Ge 1:1.

>>4598411

In bereshith was bara, and bara was with Elohim and bara was elohim (the one who created the heavens and the earth).

bereshith = begining

bara = the word which created.

berseshit bara elohim = first 3 words of genesis.

Did you skip over all that?

>>4598493

More Greek shill ad hominem attacks..

I have affirmed that Christ is the Word. and that John got it from Genesis 1:1 . What part of that is heresy?

>>4598493

It is an incontrovertible observation that ברא is in בראשית.

Likewise that ברא is with אלהים.

The only thing I have not affirmed is that Philo is an inspires apostle whom John felt compelled by the Spirit of God to quote rather than Gen 1:1.

Your heads will flip if I also showed that he derived 'life, light and bread' from אלהים.

Obviously someone is in need of some serious red-pilling. lol

>>4598601

I am referring to the Christian theologians who use Philo to define the Greek word 'Logos' and by implication, John using Philos definition. Sorry that you are unfamiliar with their usages.

>>4598614

Amen

>>4598644

Philo spoke of the Logos.

John uses logos.

Church theologians use Philo to explain tah meaning of John.

If you have understood anything else then I did not speak clearly.

Johns usage of logos is equated with Philo by church theologians. I apologize if I have been sloppy in explaining that presuming you were aware of it.

>>4598662

I do not presume that I am a brother with someone who denies that Jesus is the Word of God from Genesis, and worships a Logos invented by Philo.

I said Amen to affirm that that statement was exactly my belief.

>>4598723

We all assume something until there is a tension that needs clarified. So don't be so pedantic.

>>4598746

So I affirm that Jesus is the very God of God, the creator of heaven of earth, born of a virgin, to reveal the invisible Father through his words, life, death, resurrection, and indwelling Spirit.

But you call me a heretic and a false brother because I claim John got the 'Word' from Genesis.

Thank you!!

>>4597913

Yehoshua = Joshua

Moshiac = Messiah

Amar = word

bara = create, create by the word, word which created.

Logos = Word

>>4598873

Absolutely.

>>4598875

>Jesus is the Father, who is Jesus, through the binding of the Holy Spirit. If you see Jesus, you see the Father.

Absolutely.

Keep throwing doctrine to try and find something I don't believe…

>>4598875

I keep saying that I am irrelevant. Yet you keep bringing it back to me.

>>4598979

You are silly. Playing games with words.

Jesus is the Father, argue with Isaiah, not me. Did you forget your Christmas verses already?

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The Holy Spirit is the Father:

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

I think you cut your Trinity a bit thin when it ignores scripture.. You believe your Greek philosophy over scripture.

>>4599040

I have denied none of that. and have affirmed it repeatedly.

Jesus is an English version of the Greek Iesous. Your ignorance is showing.

>>4599031

The same way the Lord said to my Lord…

Mr 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The Jews didn't understand it either.. are you a Jew? You deny the Word from the beginning?

the bara from the bereshith lol

>>4599095

03091 יהושׁוע Yᵉhowshuwa‘ yeh-ho-shoo’- ah or יהושׁע Yᵉhowshu‘a yeh-ho-shoo’- ah

from 03068 and 03467, Greek 2424 Ιησους and 919 βαριησους;

AV-Joshua 218; 218

>>4599104

03091 יהושׁוע Yᵉhowshuwa‘ yeh-ho-shoo’- ah or יהושׁע Yᵉhowshu‘a yeh-ho-shoo’- ah

from 03068 and 03467, Greek 2424 Ιησους and 919 βαριησους;

AV-Joshua 218; 218

>>4599199

Again taunts with no sauce lol

>>4599217

For those trying to find his verses, he is using a different Bible than most. Shuffle a few this way or that..

He has just declared that I am worthy of stoning for saying Jesus is the Word of God , and that John got that from Gen 1:1 rather than his Greek high priest who relies on the writing of filo to interpret 'Logos'.

This is the very church that that has to crumble because they have deified Mary, and elevated their Greek Philosophy above scripture in order to keep people in fear.

They say you must believe! (what they say)

God says: Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

You are to KNOW first, then believe (trust), then understanding comes.

But they say you cannot know God unless you believe them first.

I have a real life I must get to. But this is an excellent example:

I have affirmed the doctrines of the faith, but because I got them from the Hebrew I am unacceptable.

Then attempts are made to play with words to catch me in something they can label me a heretic at.

Your answer: No I am not a Jew. I am not important. John was a Hebrew first. He thought and wrote with a Hebrew mind. He used the OT for his doctrine the same way Paul did as he taught the Bereans.

The Greek church threw out the Hebrew Bible, and by 400 AD when Jerome wanted to learn Hebrew, there was no one in the church to teach him.

He went to disbelieving Jews to learn how, and they lied about the language to obfuscate Christ in their own scriptures, even adding more vowels to it in 600 AD.

What little Hebrew the Greek church knows comes from that.

The Greeks have to way to discern truth. they use Greek debate and ad hominem attacks. The hermeneutic of sensus plenior has rules that eliminate free-for-all allegory.

They are stated in a previous post.

The reason this is such a 'hot item' for some is because it challenges their priesthood authority. You don't need the Hebrew rituals dressed up as a mass.

God desires for you to know him.

If I am not stoned by our Greek-muhPhilo anon,… ouch… I forgive you anon.

Even though you apparently wish to live by levitical laws given to Jews… not Gentiles.. oh dang… I knew you were a Jew lol

>>4599448

Sorry.. Old fart. I'll try harder to see those.

>>4599579

Thanks. Yeah I am not sure how to get around the muddling, there is such a giant red-pill.

Hebrew has 28 letters, which derive their meaning from the strokes. Each consonant has an attached vowel (it is a lie that there are no vowels). Words derive their meaning from the combination of the meanings of the letters.

The alphabet is a message of Christ.

All of the OT is written in prophetic riddle underneath the literal historical (sensus plenior), always speaking of Christ. It is written like a fractal, where the same story is told over and over but in greater detail, and stories within stories all speaking of Christ. The first letter says the same as the first word as the first sentence as the first chapter as the whole Bible.

A metaphor is always the same (humanly impossible to make work, which is why it proves God's intended meaning when you observe that it does).

The Greek church either denies the sensus plenior or says it exists but we must not look for it.

Gen 38 has been called the worst chapter of the Bible, but it has a hidden picture of the birth of Christ underneath. Many of the supposed contradiction occur because of Greek misunderstandings.

If I were to choose a church, I would either choose the Orthodox or the Restorationists, but neither can stand up to the tests of their own claims.

The Othodox claim that their traditions go back to the apostles, but I really don't believe anyone got fisherman Peter to walk around in a mitre fish head hat. Also insisting that one say "Mary, the mother of God" rather than any other equivalent that doesn't appear to make Mary a God, like "Mary, the mother of God incarnate" is pure paganism where a magic mantra is required to appease God.

One evidence of it's corruption is the split with the west on whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Father and the Son. The sensus plenior in Jonah tells us that he also proceeds from the Son. But it is not a doctrine so important that people must be banished over it.

The restoration movement suggests it relies only on the Bible, but in reality, they believe what they believe about the Bible. They have the same Greek philosophy and hermeneutic as everyone else descended from the corrupted 'Universal' church.

The hermeneutic of sensus plenior accomplishes what the Restorationists claim.

It is a threat to the priesthoods of the Greek churches. Yeah, even evangelicals anointed their priests to declare truth in The Chicago Statement of faith.

SP changes Bible study from a debate into a collaboration. It is not pitting one opinion against another, but using the rule that a symbol is always the same, eliminates opinions and makes them observations.

It is a simple observation that ברא is in בראשית . But that simple observation is a huge threat to the Greek church.

It doesn't matter to me if you believe it or not. It is not my teaching. It is a verifiable observation.

People have the choice to believe if John saw it and worked from there or chose Greek philosophy as his base. But only one is true and supported by observations in scripture.

But you cannot argue against the observation. it is simply true.

From Ge 1:1, using SP, one can observe the following doctrines:

God spoke and created the heavens and the earth when there was no one there to see or hear him do it.

His unspoken name is derived from the strokes of the aleph, but it is unpronounceable because the aleph is silent. It sounds similar to Yahweh.

From the beginning, no man has seen the Father.

The Son makes him known.

In the beginning (from the first word):

God created six.

He has a covenant with man.

The Son was totally devoted unto death

The son made an appointment (appointed time)

"A revelation to man, It is revealed that God spoke and created the heavens and the earth, what he intended to do was finished"

God is also a judge.

He created and taught, but was not understood, so the Son completed the work of creation, (the cross)

He is the light, Life and bread.

The Son created and was cut down.

The spirit hovered over the face of the waters.

The Father, Word, and Spirit testified.

The Spirit, Water and Blood testified.

But since it seems impossible to get past the Word in Gen1:1 it is unlikely a conversation concerning these things can be held here.

They would rather decide a matter before it is heard than to simply ask 'how can it be?'.

And simply disagreeing makes one worthy of death by stoning lol

I don't know how to unmuddle it, but it is all observations which are verifiable, reproducible, and teachable so others can also see the mystery.

Those who learn their Hebrew from Greeks or from disbelieving Jews will become confused quickly.