After reading Matthew 24:36,
But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of
heaven, but my Father only.
and other verses such as Jesus' prayer to God in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:39), where he also asks God for "this cup" to pass from him if there is any other ...
@DanO'Day The assumption that Jesus must be omniscient is doctrinal. That said, it seems like there's a legitimate text question here, though the wording could be better, in a way that doesn't presuppose the "right" answer.
@MonicaCellio and @DanO'Day: I've closed it pending some sort of edit to refocus on the text itself. I think there's little problem with the text itself. You need to introduce something else (which might come from Matthew or another New Testament source) for there to be a problem.
Response from recent visitor:
If you want this site to take off, I think you need to attract the attention of people like my Hebrew teacher, who is a PhD candidate in one of the relevant fields. He's a committed Christian, and yet teaches Hebrew Bible at my synagogue, where he and his students ...
@MonicaCellio I agree with Dan and Jon, this is superficially a 'starts with the text' question, but the intent is starting with the doctrine. It is far from certain that the OP has a real text-based question to ask and I don't think we need to 'rescue' the question unless it sparks a genuine question in one of us! The priority is to close it.
This is always a judgement call of course...
@MonicaCellio Yes, sorry I should have mentioned we have been in touch with the team and GraceNote is planning to respond in some way on meta.
It's been variously suggested on this site that the difference between Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew is like either the difference between:
Old English and modern English
Shakespeare's English (Early modern English) and modern English.
Which of these is the better analogy, and if it is th...
Can anyone give a review on the main differences between Hebrew and Aramaic? Of course, I am asking in the context of the Bible, but if there are some other known ones that lay outside of the biblical linguistics, they are also welcome. I guess the writing system of these two was just the same, n...
@JackDouglas I think the answer to that question (your chat question) IS part of the answer to the new question and hence needs a separate answer from the other one. The answer may turn out to be drawing an equivalence between Aramaic and something else, but that's an equivalence that isn't relevant to the original question. Also there may not be such a parallel to draw at all, hence deserving a separate answer.
@JonEricson ah, gotcha. Thanks, and I stand corrected. (I don't know the later texts as well as the rest of you. :-) )
@JonEricson yes, sorry for being unclear -- that answer and the followup question are the first times I've noticed this user. I just meant he's not someone I brought here, is all. :-)
@JackDouglas I wouldn't, at least yet. I think "can I use my modern-language skills to understand text?" seems different from "how do these two ancient languages relate to each other?", though they're obviously related. If the answers don't bring any additional enlightenment maybe merge later?
It's been a while since I issued a challenge and now that hats are over, it's about time for something new. In the past, I've focused on generating new questions, but this time I'd like to focus on generating new answers. Right at the moment, our answer ratio stands at 1.9, that's "Okay" (offic...
:7558137, @Monica, ok, lets leave it. Caleb I'm not sure if I was clear that "is it also fair to suggest that Old English versus modern English is like Aramaic versus modern Hebrew?" is part of the text of the older question?
@StackExchange I'd like to see more second (and third and fourth) opinions too. The challenge to implementing the challenge is being able to find those questions (as already noted in @JonEricson 's feature request on MSO.)
Using Google, I find that "inspired sensus plenior" is most closely associated with Robert L. Thomas out of The Master's Seminary. More accurately, he coined the term "inspired sensus plenior applications (ISPA)" to describe a subset of the hermeneutical principles used by New Testament authors:...
@swasheck Yes. But he is not allowed to vote and all of his excess reputation will be donated via bounties. I decided to use him so that I can provide answers that use a Christological Hermeneutic, which I don't normally express in my own posts.
What's the difference between "sensus plenior" and "inspired sensus plenior"?
Are the terms interchangeable? If "the deeper meaning intended by God but not intended by the human author" (sensus plenior) exists wouldn't it be inspired?
@JonEricson Your answer (with your name rather than your sock's, I mean) is a good example of an answer that explains a doctrinal perspective without being one. We can talk about doctrinal context without asserting it.
Are there any rules on which things in Revelation must be interpreted literally and which symbolically? The one that comes from the back of my mind is whether or not a certain thing or a character is already given an interpretation in the book itself, e.g. the martyrs in white robes in Revelation...
@JonEricson It's quite thorough and looks solid (I haven't followed all the links), but I'm left with one question: are you saying that the apostles get to exegete however they want because they're inspired? If that's not what you meant, I'm still unclear on the difference. In particular, at least one person here seem to use SP (without the "inspired" label) to say whatever he wants it to say; is that bad application or within the bounds of SP?
@JonEricson Maybe I need to stare at it more. It looks like Thomas is saying that ISPA doesn't grant people other than the Christian-testament authors license to interpret freely, which seems to imply that they can? If there's a difference between ISP and SP it seems to be that those authors used one of them and everyone else uses the other, right?
@MonicaCellio Now I see what you mean and I do need to edit the answer somewhat. According to the Christological approach, the early Christian authors were playing within the limits of the text not because they were inspired, but because they were finding the right things.
According to Wikipedia:
The Christo-Centric Principle: "The mind of deity is eternally centered in Christ. All angelic thought and ministry are centered in Christ. All Satanic hatred and subtlety are centered at Christ. All human hopes are, and human occupations should be, centered in Chri...