I'm am new here and maybe you're the head guru here and I'm not aware of it.
Haha, no . . . definitely not a "guru" of any kind. I've been here a really long time, but that doesn't mean anything, does it? My only point is that I've explained my understanding of the passages you've brought up. Nothing more, nothing less . . . if we are going to discuss these issues, then when you refer me to a passage, I will refer you to the relevant link. In this case, though, the majority of the passages you've brought up have been dealt with in this thread already, which was my original point.
Like I asked, exegesis is the standard? By your answer, I guess it is according to you. Of course I would not propose dicussing the topics herein w/o reference to Scripture. Being that I have plainly referenced Scripture, I am not sure why you would even ask that question.
How are you using the term "exegesis"? Maybe our misunderstanding is in that I am using the term to refer to your interpretation with consideration to the context, authorial intent, language and cultural barriers, etc.
Now, if you mean by "referencing" Scripture that the proof-text method is enough, then that does not fly for me. The reason is simple: you can say something and post a text to "prove" it, but that "proof" is based on your understanding
of the text. Therefore, we need to be discussing why we understand certain texts in certain ways. That is, we can into and offer our various exegeses. Perhaps "exposition" might be a more appropriate word?
There is more to studying Scripture than exegesis my friend. Exegesis is not the be all and end all. The Bereans did not have access to exegesis tools but were considered 'more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." I am quite capable of exegesis and do so when necessary and have done so on many of the passages refered to. However, exegesis in and of itself is only one approach to understanding Scripture and therefore the mind of God and His will for our life.
The Bereans didn't have the time and culture gaps nearly to the extent that we do. Besides, I am sure that Paul expounded Scripture to them. Thus, they looked it up to see if his interpretation - exegesis - was valid. In all seriousness, how else would you suggest we approach understanding Scripture?
My guess is that there are other interested people viewing the posts made on the many topics covered. They will have to search the Scriptures provided to determine which 'things are so' for themselves
This is all true, but bear in mind that each thread is supposed to be on a topic - two or more people expressing their viewpoints. If I am reading through a discussion, if I am going to make anything like an informed decision on which party, if any, are correct, I need to see how they approach and apply Scriptures. That's all I am asking for. You hold a different position than I do, so provide your explanation of the passages you mention, as I do with mine. If I disagree with your interpretation, I will explain where I see the fault, as you do with me.
You haven't given me the benefit of the doubt, which is the pont. You've right off taken offense because I've disagreed with and offered an alternative view to the topics raised. And you've even stipulated a set of rules by which those who disagree have to follow, ie pointing out where your exegesis is incorrect, as if exegesis is the only standard for the proper understanding of Scripture.
I'm not here for a fight. I'm here to discuss Biblical issues and hopefully learn more of God's unsearchable mind.
If I find that I can not pursue that goal in a friendly Chrisitan manner, then maybe I'll spend my time 'fighting' the unsaved that I discuss issues with on other forums where there is hostility instead of here. I don't need more unchristian like conflict.
Kerux, I've not taken offense to anything you said. I pointed out a few words that could be taken as arrogant. You said you didn't intend them to be. Fair enough. As for your "alternate" explanation, all I have asked is that you defend your position and point out where you disagree with me.
I'm glad you aren't here to fight. Neither am I. However, if we are going to discuss these matters, then let's discuss them. If I recall, you are the one who disagreed with me?