Thanks for commenting! My reply is by way of an analogy: If I present the sequence of numbers 8, 44, 13, 62 and 138 I can define an infinite number of patterns that explain that sequence. However, doing so post-hoc doesn't guarantee that the pattern I "discover" isn't actually just a pattern I "invent." Similarly, it's notoriously easy to use any weaving of scripture to prove a point I already know I want to make. I contend that this is what happened historically -- the point of view that we now accept as orthodox (small 'o') was the point of view that won out among several top contenders. Once the decisions were made regarding what the correct answers were (i.e., at the church councils), explanations were developed to "back-fill" the scripture references to make those points.
Everyone is welcome to the interpretation that they want to hold; however, I present an alternate view here which is unorthodox/heretical etc. May the Spirit of God be with you!
Hi Robert --
Thanks for commenting! My reply is by way of an analogy: If I present the sequence of numbers 8, 44, 13, 62 and 138 I can define an infinite number of patterns that explain that sequence. However, doing so post-hoc doesn't guarantee that the pattern I "discover" isn't actually just a pattern I "invent." Similarly, it's notoriously easy to use any weaving of scripture to prove a point I already know I want to make. I contend that this is what happened historically -- the point of view that we now accept as orthodox (small 'o') was the point of view that won out among several top contenders. Once the decisions were made regarding what the correct answers were (i.e., at the church councils), explanations were developed to "back-fill" the scripture references to make those points.
Everyone is welcome to the interpretation that they want to hold; however, I present an alternate view here which is unorthodox/heretical etc. May the Spirit of God be with you!