e.r.m.
Church of Christ
eisegesis
1. an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eisegesis?s=t
&
"A teaching does not have to be written in the Bible as long as the concept is there."
Aren't these two the same thing? A concept being in the Bible is the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, as long as it's not explicitly written in the Bible.
Teachings create cultures around them to accommodate the teachings. If a teaching was dominant as it would have been huge back then as it is today. The catchphrases, the examples, the behaviors that develop around said teaching are way too big to be hidden from scripture. So when teachings are not explicitly written in scripture, and are found only between- the-lines, it's not being picky to say that teaching doesn't exist at all. The whole culture cannot hide from scripture.
I often find when a teaching is missing from the Bible (e.g. infant baptism, prayer to dead saints) the whole culture surrounding that teaching is also missing (e.g. family gathering, baby dedication, statuettes, patron saints of..., etc.) as well.
The same principal also applies to the getting saved method of receiving Jesus as savior in prayer. Both the explicit teaching and the culture that exists around it today (mass audience prayer Jesus invitations, single prayer invitations, statements of people having invited Jesus as their savior, etc.).
When teachings are explicitly written in the Bible, you see the examples, culture, and discussion around it.
Matthew 25:31-46 about the poor and needy. Jesus and the apostles repeatedly were engaged in healing and feeding the needy.
For these reasons, there is an exegetical precedence that explicitly written scripture is the proof that teachings existed in the first century, and that between-the-lines, "as long as the concept is there" teachings simply did not and are false teachings.
I'm not making a point of certain teachings, just using examples. My point is that explicitly written vs. not explicitly written is a reliable tool to filter out false teachings, interpreter's own ideas, biases, or the like, and remain with the original NT teachings.
The floor is open.
1. an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eisegesis?s=t
&
"A teaching does not have to be written in the Bible as long as the concept is there."
Aren't these two the same thing? A concept being in the Bible is the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, as long as it's not explicitly written in the Bible.
Teachings create cultures around them to accommodate the teachings. If a teaching was dominant as it would have been huge back then as it is today. The catchphrases, the examples, the behaviors that develop around said teaching are way too big to be hidden from scripture. So when teachings are not explicitly written in scripture, and are found only between- the-lines, it's not being picky to say that teaching doesn't exist at all. The whole culture cannot hide from scripture.
I often find when a teaching is missing from the Bible (e.g. infant baptism, prayer to dead saints) the whole culture surrounding that teaching is also missing (e.g. family gathering, baby dedication, statuettes, patron saints of..., etc.) as well.
The same principal also applies to the getting saved method of receiving Jesus as savior in prayer. Both the explicit teaching and the culture that exists around it today (mass audience prayer Jesus invitations, single prayer invitations, statements of people having invited Jesus as their savior, etc.).
When teachings are explicitly written in the Bible, you see the examples, culture, and discussion around it.
Matthew 25:31-46 about the poor and needy. Jesus and the apostles repeatedly were engaged in healing and feeding the needy.
For these reasons, there is an exegetical precedence that explicitly written scripture is the proof that teachings existed in the first century, and that between-the-lines, "as long as the concept is there" teachings simply did not and are false teachings.
I'm not making a point of certain teachings, just using examples. My point is that explicitly written vs. not explicitly written is a reliable tool to filter out false teachings, interpreter's own ideas, biases, or the like, and remain with the original NT teachings.
The floor is open.