Sensus plenior The term means 'higher meaning' and is used by various Christian authors in slightly different ways. It generally refers to the meaning of scripture intended by God, but perhaps not even known by the human author. There have been some heated debates as to whether it exists, and if it exists are we allowed to unpack it. Through the ages the church has been unable to rid itself of allegorical interpretations yet has been uncomfortable, and rightly so, of the free-for-all nature of them. At the same time, Jesus was particularly critical of the teachers in his day, since they could not discern from the scriptures that there is no marriage in heaven and that angels do not marry. He said that they did not "know the scriptures nor the power of God." Yet there are apparently few today who can show which verses Jesus was referring to, which may direct the same criticism at our modern hermeneutic. Likewise we seem to be content with Matthew's statement that it was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, even when we cannot find such a prophecy. We are also left with the conundrum that Jesus had emptied himself of his deity in the incarnation, yet we cannot explain how he knew who he was, and what he was to do without the use of his omniscience. And though he apparently explained this all to those on the Road to Emmaus, how all the scriptures spoke of him, we cannot but see glimpses of hints in the OT scriptures. Even those passages we agree are prophetic appear to be written in riddle. Isn't is possible that we don't read the scriptures the same way Jesus did? If we could, should we? Isn't Christ the mystery of the OT that is revealed in the New? Shouldn't we be able to see him hidden, now that we see him clearly? I am hoping to find some folks who would be willing to look at a method of interpretation that may fit the bill. This would be a serious discussion of methodology and content. The method was available in the first century, and I am finding that in using it, every verse of scripture participates in painting pictures or shadows of Christ which are firmly attached to the words of the literal and yet contain a double entendre speaking of Christ. They appear to prophesy eveything Jesus did from his twelve year old adventure in the temple, to his temptation is the wilderness, to walking on water, etc. though I am far from proving it out. If the method is of human invention then I have no interest in pursuing it further. If it is real, and verifiable and reproducible, then I would think it would have the same weight of scripture as the literal. Simply claiming to answer the questions above is an extraordinary claim, and I expect extraordinary proof should be demanded. Thanks in advance.