Here we go again. So Jesus was Greek now? If Jesus meant "Impure" why did he not use the word "akathartos" or other Greek words that are more specific? It is not like Greeks did not have words that describe "sexual impurity" Perhaps because he spoke Aramaic not Greek. So tell me the words he used.
Some peoples minds just go strait into the gutter. Do you spend alot of time thinkinga bout like that little projection ..?
Is this all you could come up with ? Unfortunately, the closest to original records we have of words of Jesus were written in Greek. It is not like the person writing the words of Jesus in Greek .. did not have Greek words to describe "sexual impurity" if thats what they thought Jesus meant. Duophhhhh ..
How is the statement "what is a girl to do" from the gutter ? It is your mind that was so eager to go into the gutter that it went there without cause, based on a hallucination. Where do you figure these lurid thoughts come from ? I have a hunch !
The moral relativist only has to fool himself. Don't you see, hes an expert in Greek, but not actually claiming that, and somehow based on that mastery of Greek, the words sexual impurity means... Only adultry. And of course he's got a great girl, who he is clearly not married to, but there is not way he is rationalizing his behavior. Its everyone else whose faith is in danger of the truth? A truth he cannot support with anything, and is deliberately avoiding scripture to maintain. Its funny how Christianity is whatever gifted is doing, unfortunately, that sortta violates the whole point of having standards. And just calling oneself Christian so one can rationalize their behavior? Well, the moral relativist only has fool himself.
Oh, so panel of assembled scholars used this word as the most fitting, and you jusr disagree. Many denominations of Christianity consider the KJV, because of that process, to be the most authentic version of the Bible. You who have no Ph.d, and do not speak, read, or write Greek, are rejecting a time honored translation of a single word. ?..based on? Nothing. The fact that you are doing what is called sin in the Bible, is of course not relevant in the slightest to your moral relavatism? You my friend are little more the excuse factory.
LOL ..many denominations do not use the KJV, Catholics dont, Orthadox doesnt, Lutherans dont .. Not sure what why you are going on about the KJV ? I use it often. Who said I did not have a Ph.D, and I do not need to be able to read or write Greek in order to cite an expert that does. Perhaps you have not attended University, but even if you didnt, you should realize that one does not need to read Greek in order to read a book by someone that does. This is why I gave you the links so that you can check out the expert commentary for yourself. Why are you getting mad at me for posting, with references, what expert scholars claim ? You on the otherhand have provided no sources for your blubberings.
I have attended university You have found what you wanted to find. It is fine though just do not pollute any young people with your lies. Also your argument is not your own.
And it is apparent from your posts at times. Absolutely my argument is not my own. My argument, in this case, comes from folks who Bible websites consider experts, Priests, and Theologins. Having taken a couple or 3 philosophy classes from a Jewish prof from Oxford I learned enough to know that one should consider the best arguments from both sides. I have never claimed that Jesus was for "sex parties" or any such rediculous thing. I have never claimed that I was against marriage or thought that rampant promiscuity was a good thing. My claim is simply that I can not find any compelling evidence that suggests that Jesus thought, inferred, or claimed that "any sex outside of marriage" was a bad thing. The best evidence that I have found for "your side" is when Jesus talks about that if a man puts his woman out for any cause except fornication, causes her to commit adultery" The passage does not make much sense on the surface, as is the case with many of the passages from Jesus .. he seems to say some bizarre things when taken literally. Just because I put my wife out of the house does not "cause" her to commit adultery. At least not directly. Knowing the times however, which were different then than now, a woman needed a man for the most part in order to survive. So in a way she was forced to find another man to take care of her. then the passage goes on to say that whoever marries a divorced woman is also committing adultery. Now this confuses the issue even more. What is this woman to do if no man will take her because Jesus has commanded that if he does he is committing adultery ? Is Jesus really counciling that we leave this woman to wander the streets begging ? Something is missing from this picture. Things are then further complicated by the fact that Jesus just a few passages earlier says he came not to change one iota from the law. Then a few passages later contradicts "the law" referring to the OT "law" allowing for a man to put out his wife by writing a letter but unilaterally, and without comment on the contradiction, says that if someone does put his wife out he is causing that woman to commit adultery. Now many things are missing from this picture. What is the driving philosophy here ? Is it that the marriage is sacred and so it is better to live on the street begging. Was marriage somehow less sacred in the OT ? Is it the breaking of the marriage vow that is a sin, is adultery the sin, or is sex .. full stop .. period the sin unless folks are married, so long as the one you are married to was is not divorced. Or .. is the driving philosophy more practical in that if you force a woman out of your house, you are causing her to commit sin and so she is not responsible for that sin and neither is the fellow who marries her .. the guilt is on the fellow who puts his wife out. Presumably the man could take other wives if he was unhappy with the first so instead of putting her out he should just let her stay and amuse himself with his other wife, or wives. This keeps her from having to commit adultery because she is fed and clothed. This passage is the best evidence for your case that I can find. We have to make an broad inference to find support for your case in this passage but this is the best evidence so far (IMO) The reason I do not accept this evidence, personally, is because this passage does not make sense internally and something seems amis. Even ignoring these things we still have to make inferences beyond the apparent scope of this passage in order to support your claim. Further confusing the issue is the contradiction with OT law. Women have the perogative to change their minds so I suppose God does too, but this answer is unsatisfactory IMO. I have made the best case that I can find for your claim .. and it is a muddy case indeed. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to follow my philosophy Prof's advice and find the best case for my claim, in relation to this passage and then refute it. or .. perhaps you can find a better example from Jesus which would be preferrable because this example is so troublesome. Perhaps you can clarify the issues.
My issue is you are looking for loopholes to fit your world view. You want to see words from a dead man that were said in a dead language and it was not recorded in said language. We must look at context. You can say that he never said it was wrong to do something but, you can not, buy my contention, say he said you can. It is a matter of proof. I can prove that we have no record of Christ saying sex outside of marriage is good but we do have Christ comparing looking at a woman with want to adultery. All I can do is tell you to pray and do not go in looking for an answer. Go in seeking wisdom and truth. If you can say that a man that compared looking to Adultery thought that random sex was fine (promiscuity) than you have a mountain to climb that has no summit. You must also remember that marriage as we know it is a social construct and in the eyes of God the joining of the flesh is marriage.
Perhaps you have not, well, no perhaps about it. You have not attended higher learning. The accepted method is, thesis, supporting evidence (for which you have none), rebuttal of common crtiticism, restated conclusion. Now using your amazing intellectual ability, search the number of denominations that DO use the KJV of the bible. And then, you will note that the Catholic Church, Lurthern church, etc. All have dictates about sex outside of marriage. A FACT you seem willing to ignore. We also have your source, which is from a minister who says in effect lust leads to the actuality of sin. He certainly does not say promiscuity is good. The rest is a dictionary where you makenunsupported claims like sexual immorality ONly includes adultry- and that is a concept rejected throughout the Bible. In short, you have nothing but excuses and double standards, but you have no proof of anything you claim. And what you offer, from someone whonhasnpublished academic work, is trite. After all i actually am an expert having ACTUALLY been through thenwickets. The only thing you do is find lame excuses to denynwhat is clear to everyone else, just asnyou did with the Jesus Myth, and its nothing but pride. Which is why all you can do, as you do, is selected cut andnpasting in an inaccurate way. Its dishonesty in support of pride. Nothing more.
I respect your right to end discussion on this just know if you ever need to talk I would be happy to do so. And I will end with this do not ever feel unworthy that is Satan laughing and keeping you away from God. YOU ARE WORTHY DONT EVER FORGET IT.
I just out a stop to it because it is not something I put much thought into before I opened up the can of worms. We all have issues and I just need to work through mine. Thanks, Kevin
Giftedone said, WEll first of all you have to stand on the entire Word of God and what He said. Did you know that Jesus never gave a sermon on abortion or rape or pedophelia? Does that mean then that Christ would condone the three acts because he did not talk about them? No. God created Eve for Adam. This is the first institution of marriage. The 7th commandment says and instructs us NOT TO HAVE SEX with anyone other than our spouse. Spouse meaning ONE PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. There is not one example of same sex marriage in the Bible…OT or the NT. Two become ONE FLESH. Sex between the two is what intimacy is all about. 1 Corinthians 6:16-18 Hebrews 13:4 says,"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." Who was God talking about when God mentions the sexually immoral? If sex outside marriage…and before marriage is ok…then who are the immoral? And if sex is ok…outside marriage then how do you square it with the seventh commandment? Why did Jesus tell the woman about to be stoned…for a sexual activity…to GO AND SIN NO MORE? If sex is ok….what did she do wrong? Sex before marriage…is sin it is fornication. Lust is a sin. Adultry is sin. There is no compromising the Word….the truth is the truth whether we agree with it or not. Sin has consequences. The Bible says that lust and impure thoughts come from an evil, sinful heart. "No fornicator has any inheritance in the kingdom of God." Ephesians 5:5 ”For out of the heart come evil thoughts … sexual immorality” Matthew 15:19 Mark 7:21 Luke 6:45 Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord … Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit … and you are not your own? … therefore glorify God in your body I Corinthians 6:18-20 Jesus said…….'But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'Matthew 5:27-28 If you say sex is ok…even before marriage…then why would Jesus say something like this? Obviously lusting is bad….so how could the actual act of sex…be good outside the confines of what Jesus said.
Im looking for what Jesus was actually all about. . We have no record of Christ saying the moon is made of green cheese either but that does not make it true. I agree with the fellow who did the nice summary and showed that the word woman/wife are used interchangably in Greek and the same with Lust/covet Coveting your neighbors wife is the same as commiting adultery in your heart. This makes the most sense to me. If Jesus was referring to something other than adultery he would have said so (IMO). My take is that the purpose of Jesus coming to deliver Gods message was to confuse people by saying things that were convoluted and confusing. We have to remember, as you pointed out earlier, that the Gospels were not written in Aramaic. It is possible that Jesus did speak some Greek and Hebrew though. What we have is someone writing down, possibly many years after the fact, what they heard Jesus said. The earliest NT papyri in existence contains a few passages from John 18 in roughly 125 AD. A few passages from Matt 21, 150AD. Surely there were some writings earlier but even religious historians date the writing of Mark to no earlier than 65 AD - 80AD. Not that we know it was written then but the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem was in 70AD so at least that portion could not have been written earlier. Alot can happen to oral tradition over 40 years and what the original version said is not necessarily what we have today. Todays Bibles are much better than the 17th century KJV which was full of errors but these are based on translations of the Gospels that were centuries after Jesus. Why I do into this diatribe is because that is part of my justification for needing the message to make sense. That and because I think that the original message of Jesus did not confuse the heck out of the masses. The message may have shocked them .. but my contention is that they understood what Jesus meant. I start from the premise that no human speaks for God. Perhaps this is Gods idea but I do not know that for certain. From what I can glean from the "ideas" of Jesus is that it was thoughts that were more important than physical things. "It is not what goes into the mouth that makes one unclean/defiles a person but what comes out" 1) Certainly coveting your neighbors wife is a bad thought ..someone that is openly lusting after his friends wife is deplorable 2)I can not say the same about two adults developing a loving relationship. It does not make sense to me that God would put 1) and 2) in the same catagory. 1) is a bad thought and has a bad outcome .. What is so wrong with (2) ?
Regardless of my level of education, and believe me in a pissing contest you would lose .. there are 10 yr olds that can stay on point better than the nonsense posted above. First off .. I did give my premise (not thesis . .duh) "that Jesus did not state that "all sex outside of marriage was bad" presented supporting evidence, and have indeed rebutted criticism and stated my conclusion. If you do not accept that evidence than show how it is wrong. All the rest is just blubbering.
Hebrews 13:4 is talking about adulterers and paramours - a paramour is the illicit partner of a married person. Whoremonger is another term given. It is sad the number of outright bad and/or misleading Bible translations there are out there. I will leave it to you to find out for yourself what the words in the other passages you give mean. I find this site very helpful http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb13.pdf In addition the question at hand is "what did Jesus say" and this is not a quote from Jesus. Modern scholars even reject Hebrews as being of Pauline authorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
Originally Posted by Giftedone Im looking for what Jesus was actually all about. The fact that reality does not jive with your beliefs is reason to change your beliefs rather than trying to make the facts fit your beliefs. We have no record of Christ saying the moon is made of green cheese either but that does not make it true. What was foolish and pointless was your argument from ignorance. My post proves how pointless your argument " because cant prove Jesus did not say sex was good .. then sex must be bad" is. I agree with the fellow who did the nice summary and showed that the word woman/wife are used interchangably in Greek and the same with Lust/covet Coveting your neighbors wife is the same as commiting adultery in your heart. This makes the most sense to me. If Jesus was referring to something other than adultery he would have said so (IMO). My take is that the purpose of Jesus coming to deliver Gods message was to confuse people by saying things that were convoluted and confusing. Quote: I start from the premise that no human speaks for God. Perhaps this is Gods idea but I do not know that for certain. We have to remember, as you pointed out earlier, that the Gospels were not written in Aramaic. It is possible that Jesus did speak some Greek and Hebrew though. What we have is someone writing down, possibly many years after the fact, what they heard Jesus said. The earliest NT papyri in existence contains a few passages from John 18 in roughly 125 AD. A few passages from Matt 21, 150AD. Surely there were some writings earlier but even religious historians date the writing of Mark to no earlier than 65 AD - 80AD. Not that we know it was written then but the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem was in 70AD so at least that portion could not have been written earlier. Alot can happen to oral tradition over 40 years and what the original version said is not necessarily what we have today. Todays Bibles are much better than the 17th century KJV which was full of errors but these are based on translations of the Gospels that were centuries after Jesus. Quote: Actually Oral tradition is quite accurate. This has been proven. Why I do into this diatribe is because that is part of my justification for needing the message to make sense. That and because I think that the original message of Jesus did not confuse the heck out of the masses. clearly you do not take the topic seriously. The message may have shocked them .. but my contention is that they understood what Jesus meant. I start from the premise that no human speaks for God. Perhaps this is Gods idea but I do not know that for certain. No but you were. And then you do not even attempt to answer the above. Look.... if "thinking" is too much for your brain we need not discuss this further. You are starting to get delusional .. accusing me of what you are doing and so forth. This is a stage of denial. If you can not take the heat .. then get out of the kitchen and go into denial !
I take this topic very seriously. You are seeking vindication. You are like many in the progressive church.
Then go back and give some serious answers to my last post. I missed commenting on the one thing you said that had merit "oral tradition". Oral tradition is accurate when people do not have writing. Preachers in Africa would give a sermon and the folks listening would go back to their tribes and recite the sermon verbatum. .. Pretty cool actually. As soon as writing is learned the ability to remember stuff verbatum falls off dramatically. Regardless .. the fact remains that we do not know.
You do not seek truth you seek loopholes. You know that you are wrong lest you would not need to seek vindication. One who seeks a truth will usually find the one truth they seek. One who seeks the truth will find many truth that can guide them on their journey to enlightenment. You seek a truth that is not defined because it is and was not an issue until recent times.
repeating the same mantra over and over again to yourself will not change the fact that you have no valid support for your claim. Its called denial .. Close your eyes, ears, mouth nose and anything else that might let the bad news in. No worries .. that is the first step in the 4 stages of change. Stage 2 is grudging acceptance. There is hope though .. getting to stage 4 brings freedom and enlightenment. No one said the search for the truth was going to be easy .. no no no
