Hermeneutics

1. Sola Scriptura
   • The notion that all cults can be determined by their use of extra-biblical sources.
   • Status: Intended to disprove everything except christianity it actually disproves christianity itself since the new testament is itself an extra-biblical source.
   • Also denies Jewish oral law which is absolutely required by the old testament and endorsed by the new
2. Scriptura Sui Interpres
   • Interpret the obscure in light of the clear; aka “A verse in the light interprets a verse in the darkness.”
     • Ex. the protestant interpretation of Matthew 16 based on the words of Peter referring to believers as petros.
3. Interpret the non-didactic in light of the didactic.
   • This principle follows from the first. The Bible contains many different genres or types of literature. Some types of literature are better suited than others for different types of communication. For example, if a writer’s primary goal is to evoke emotion or stir the imagination, then poetry or a fictional narrative or parable is usually a good vehicle. On the other hand, if the writer desires primarily to teach or instruct his readers on a particular topic, then a didactic form of writing is often best. “didactic” here means a text that provides straight-forward instructional material that is not, for the most part, “dressed up” in figurative, poetic, or narrative language.
   • The TNK (Tanakh) dictates this principle; the five books of moses interpret the prophets, and the prophets interpret the writings, in a sort of top-down mode of authority.
   • A latter revelation cannot abrogate an earlier revelation (no progressive revelation).

short form, needs fixing

• Protestant Christians use “Scriptura sui interpres” to interpret Matthew 16 and disprove Catholicism.
• Christians say petros means believer since Peter uses “petros” to refer to belevers
  • and therefore Peter would have understood jesus' words to mean 'belief' and not himself
  • also: petra means a large rock
• “Can you show me any other verse which indicates the primacy of peter?” no –> therefore:

Therefore, what christians do is say that their interpretation is valid because there is:

• a confirming verse

and

• no verse in opposition

So the point is, when you do this to a Christian by demanding proof out of the old testament, ex. for Ezekiel 18:21, they will become hypocrites and make claims such as “even king david believed in Jesus”.

“All Cults are indicated by an extra-biblical source of Authority” –Darth Dawkins