Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the Song of Solomon?
Me
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 53 (16442)
09-02-2002 3:40 PM


This is a slightly less common thread than those I usually see, but I think this is the right place for it.
Bible fundamentalists are usually anxious to tell us that the bible is an inerrant document - the word of God passed down to Man. As such, Man must obey its instructions and believe its history as a matter of faith. It is the divine direction for a good life.
I can see that a book of history and law is internally consistent with this belief. But what is an erotic love poem doing in the document?
Usually fundamentalists say that this must be understood allegorically. But if this is the case, why can't we read Genesis allegorically? And if we must read it literally, what does it mean, and why is it so important?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-03-2002 1:54 AM Me has replied
 Message 6 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-05-2002 8:13 PM Me has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 53 (16460)
09-03-2002 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Me
09-02-2002 3:40 PM


I just read it again.
It is clearly a narrative of an interaction between a man and a woman. It is also very clear that it is left open as to who they are!
But Christians recognize it as propheic of Chrsit and his bride, the church, whether or not Solomon experienced these things in real life himself.
If you choose to make an analogy of Song to the accounts of creation or the flood in Genesis then you must have an awful lot of trouble watching TV. "When is it real, when is it a story? I can't tell!" We can - easily, as can agnostic Bible scholars.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 3:40 PM Me has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Me, posted 09-03-2002 7:25 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Me
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 53 (16474)
09-03-2002 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
09-03-2002 1:54 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I just read it again.
It is clearly a narrative of an interaction between a man and a woman. [/quote]
[/b]
Yes - I think that comes over rather well!
[QUOTE][B]
It is also very clear that it is left open as to who they are!
But Christians recognize it as propheic of Chrsit and his bride, the church, whether or not Solomon experienced these things in real life himself. [/quote]
[/b]
And I heard that Christians recognised it more recently as prophetic of the love of God for Mary. Cite below:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/...love-in-the-arts/songofsongs.html
But given there is no indication of any of this in the text you have to pedal very hard to come to this conclusion. For an inerrant bible there seems to be a lot of human interpretation going on here.Is it just a rule that you have to look at it this way? I, of course, simply see it as a series of erotic and sensual love poems.
quote:

If you choose to make an analogy of Song to the accounts of creation or the flood in Genesis then you must have an awful lot of trouble watching TV. "When is it real, when is it a story? I can't tell!" We can - easily, as can agnostic Bible scholars.

Hang on a second - this sounds confusing! What do you mean by 'make an analogy of Song to the accounts of creation..'? I am just saying that if I read Song and look at the internal evidence of the document I get an erotic love poem, describing a relationship between a man and woman which is, frankly, very believable, resonates with effective imagery, and has no trouble being interpreted by any 18 year old in love a few thousand years later. You tell me that really it is a prophetic allegory.
Then I read an account of the creation of the world, which was not believable a thousand years after it was written, let alone now, and has a lot in common with the story-type we call myth. You tell me that this one is literally true. The problem I have is that you are contradicting the internal evidence of the writing, presumably on the basis of external pressure to make it conform to some pre-set ideals.
Why? I can see no difficulty with the bible containing the word of God and also containing myth. I have no trouble with myth being the word of God - remember Lewis saying that 'sometimes a fairy-tale is the best way of putting over something you want to say' (I paraphrase). If you want to compress multiple and complex meanings into a sentence you are often better off to use myth or similar circumlocutions, like the Delphic oracle. Creationist interpretation looks like a vain attempt to lock understanding of this document down to narrow cultural limits, which will fail to transcend a period of a few hundred years.
Incidentally, though I watch little television, I have little difficulty determining its accuracy. It is a 'story' most of the time, particularly when a politician is speaking! Anyone who thinks there is much reality on television needs to improve their critical faculties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-03-2002 1:54 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-03-2002 9:35 PM Me has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 53 (16517)
09-03-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Me
09-03-2002 7:25 AM


^ Solomon was probably describing a real event that was also prophetic. Just as the Pharaoh of Moses' killing all new borns was real and yet also prophetic of (i) Herod going after new borns at the time of Christ's birth and (ii) Satan going after the 'manchild' born of the woman (= church) in Rev 12/13.
Creation and the flood on he other hand are:
On the first day I created X, on the second day I created Y etc and then in other parts of Scipture it states that 'God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th'. Same with the flood. Details of days, years, cubits, gopher wood, pitch, animals, food, 8 saved, retreat of waters below highest mountains etc.
Genesis is simply not comparable to the generic poetic imagery of Song or Revelation.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Me, posted 09-03-2002 7:25 AM Me has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Me, posted 09-05-2002 8:34 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Me
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 53 (16624)
09-05-2002 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
09-03-2002 9:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Solomon was probably describing a real event that was also prophetic. Just as the Pharaoh of Moses' killing all new borns was real and yet also prophetic of (i) Herod going after new borns at the time of Christ's birth and (ii) Satan going after the 'manchild' born of the woman (= church) in Rev 12/13.
Creation and the flood on he other hand are:
On the first day I created X, on the second day I created Y etc and then in other parts of Scipture it states that 'God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th'. Same with the flood. Details of days, years, cubits, gopher wood, pitch, animals, food, 8 saved, retreat of waters below highest mountains etc.
Genesis is simply not comparable to the generic poetic imagery of Song or Revelation.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-03-2002]

Your key point seems to be that rich, poetic imagery should be interpreted as prophesy, while direct factual statement should be interpreted as literal truth. Then you claim that direct factual statement - the new-born story - can also be prophetic, while even the poetic imagery is 'probably real'.
Where is the consistency in this position? Anything now can be real or a vision, or both. Why can't I interpret the Genesis story as a prophesy of a world flood to come when we have polluted our planet and started global warming?
And the prophesy is not up to much either. Someone or something is going to love someone or something. Why must it be Christ and the Church? Which Church? I presume each sect believes it refers to them - they cannot all be right. Does this make the prophesy wrong? It certainly makes it useless. Why can't it refer to man's love for the truth, or a child's love for sweets? How can this be an accurate and inerrant word of god? It could mean anything.
You appear to be applying interpretations to the Song which are not supported by any internal evidence, but purely for your own convenience. The precise details of the Genesis story read exactly like the use of detail, sometimes called 'spurious precision' after the statistical problem, applied to enhance storytelling. Sometimes the numbers have mystic significance, like 40, 7 or 3. A retelling of many folk tales will illustrate this. That is the way it seems to me. Yet to you they are real, and not prophetic.
An often-used argument by creationists is that when they read Genesis it immediately strikes them as obviously true - the obvious first interpretation is that creation took place in a week and there was a flood. Why can we not apply the same argument to the Song? Do you really immediately see it as a depiction of Christ's love for the church? Why, then, is there all this sensual and erotic language, not the kind of thing I usually associate with love of an institution? Why can't it be a collection of love songs, and nothing else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-03-2002 9:35 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-06-2002 8:35 AM Me has not replied
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:03 AM Me has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 53 (19142)
10-05-2002 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Me
09-02-2002 3:40 PM


I would suggest you read the book from a different perspective now, though this is an advanced undertaking meant for students of the Bible already well tutored in theology. Below is an interesting presentation with notes that should help you see the spiritual side of it. Song of Solomon is unquestionably canon quality, undispued among Bible scholars of the generations. But, until a person experiences God personally, like Kings David and Solomon did, and Christians do today, it will be difficult to refrain from taking its message in the earthy, sensual mode.
{Long URL(s) "hidden". - Adminnemooseus}
The PDF version is at http://www.heraldmag.org/...ibrary/Treatis/FREY/canticle.pdf
The book is quite neglected by most lovers of the Bible who just don't mature enough to handle it. I certainly don't recommend it to beginners. The depth of spirituality is great, fitting for the more discerning of readers already familiar with the grace and love of the Lord God.
No spaces in there! That url must be continuous. I got there through a google search "(christ and his bride) Macilravy"
I wish I could excerpt enough of a very old book I have, "Christ and his Bride" (554 pages ) by Cora Harris MacIlravy, published by The Elbethel Publishing House, Chicago, IL. Long ago out of print, precious, beautifully worded.
If a person approaches the book correctly, as we say, guided by the Spirit to read it with his help, one need not take the book alegorically, but learn spiritual principles of the Bible from the direct story content. It isn't known whether Solomon actually meant for that book to be taken the way men did when they canonized the Scriptures, but it is known he was used of God, inspired to write it the way God wanted it. It is God who is responsible for that book, not Solomon or his level of understanding, though his was great indeed.
[This message has been edited by Wordswordsman, 10-05-2002]
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Hide" one (or more?) long URL's, which were causing the page to be overwide. Use "peek" if you feel you need to see them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 3:40 PM Me has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 53 (19164)
10-06-2002 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Me
09-05-2002 8:34 AM


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your key point seems to be that rich, poetic imagery should be interpreted as prophesy, while direct factual statement should be interpreted as literal truth. Then you claim that direct factual statement - the new-born story - can also be prophetic, while even the poetic imagery is 'probably real'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: The poetry of the Bible is both rich with reality (literal meaning for the "present" audience spoken to, and sometimes prophetic in that many of the prophecies in the Bible are after the "law of double reference". That principle is often used throughout the Bible, whether poetically or not. Casual reading of the Scriptures doesn't lend towards proper understanding of all the literary implications embedded in those words. There is an understanding process that matures as underlying principles are learned within any discipline. One doesn't master quantum mechanics with a high school physics 101 course under the belt.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the consistency in this position? Anything now can be real or a vision, or both. Why can't I interpret the Genesis story as a prophesy of a world flood to come when we have polluted our planet and started global warming?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Visions in the Bible are literal visions of things past, sometimes things present, and of course things to come. If one announces a vision, the message of the vision becomes prophecy. A false vision generates a false prophecy.
The world flood was announced by God to Noah at least a thousand years after the creation. Until then there was no need of such a prophecy while God allowed man to develop under the Adamic Covenant. It would be poor interpretation of the Genesis account being but a prophecy of a yet future flood due to the fact many dozens of Bible references to the PAST flood are present, verified by Jesus Christ.
On a side note, it has not been supported that global warming has been caused by pollution by man. It's evident that is part of a long term cycle, demonstrated by the ending of the Ice Age long before pollution was a factor. While local pollution cetainly exxagerates the natural local effects of global warming, the cumulative pollution by man from a millennia of activity can't equal the pollution of one volcanic eruption.
The next treatment prescribed by God is renovation of earth by fire.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the prophesy is not up to much either. Someone or something is going to love someone or something. Why must it be Christ and the Church? Which Church? I presume each sect believes it refers to them - they cannot all be right. Does this make the prophesy wrong? It certainly makes it useless. Why can't it refer to man's love for the truth, or a child's love for sweets? How can this be an accurate and inerrant word of god? It could mean anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: There is only one Church, one body of Christ. All sects of Christianity that adhere to just a few commonly held essential biblical beliefs are members of that world-wide body of believers, regardless their pecularities of worship styles. Each member body basically enters by its individual members meeting the conditions of being "born again", accepting the "believe, repent, be baptized" command. All the other elements are part of developing a new lifestyle centered around spiritual instruction, pleasing God.
That book could of course be taken for the meanings you describe, but those meanings wouldn't be consistent with the purposes of King Solomon or God, who asked for and obtained the wisdom no other human had possessed or would possess. He knew God. God spoke through him, not to glorify carnal fleshly love, but through a deep understanding of that relationship between a man and woman reveal the relationship between God and his people. It is a very intimate, personal relationship in the spirit, no less than that possible between humans. There is a relationship with God that is practically impossible to directly describe and capture all the nuances of it. Poetry is one way to better express inward thinking, and so is a love story.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An often-used argument by creationists is that when they read Genesis it immediately strikes them as obviously true - the obvious first interpretation is that creation took place in a week and there was a flood. Why can we not apply the same argument to the Song? Do you really immediately see it as a depiction of Christ's love for the church? Why, then, is there all this sensual and erotic language, not the kind of thing I usually associate with love of an institution? Why can't it be a collection of love songs, and nothing else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: I doubt many Christians initially read Genesis. Most come to the faith through the Book of John or other New Testament readings. There the reader finds Christ endorsed the Genesis account, dispelling the presumptions of many (even some Christians) that the Old Testament is not useful to them. One can then read the account with confidence there is a literal truth to be realized, as well as imbedded prophecy.
There is no biblical statement linking the Song to the Genesis account. Song of Solomon stands alone, yet completely harmonious with all the other revelations of the desired relationship between God and man. No reader of it will likely make the connection of Christ's love for His Church, His body, of which He is the head. Rather, men come to such knowledge burdened with inappropriate concepts about sex. God invented sex and erotic behavior, which men pervert. He meant all that to be healthy and normal between A man and A woman, limited to individual couples. A healthy, God-endorsed marriage will be full of sexual intimacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Me, posted 09-05-2002 8:34 AM Me has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by sl33w, posted 07-01-2008 8:48 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 5732 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 8 of 53 (473684)
07-01-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wordswordsman
10-06-2002 8:35 AM


Song of Solomon = Pornography
1) The obssession with "breast, navel, joint of the thigh, my hole" should convince anyone that it is pornography.
2) It is also apocryphal.
Eshter and Song of Solomon contain none of the names of God.
F.F. Bruce, "Canon," wrote that many, both Jews and Christians, believed these two books were apocryphal.
3) John 21.23-25 is also Atheism. Jesus said that he (John) would remain until I come, vs 22. Then vss 23-25 explained that Jesus lied.
sl33w

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-06-2002 8:35 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jaywill, posted 07-05-2008 8:42 AM sl33w has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 9 of 53 (473690)
07-01-2008 10:38 PM


Old topic comes back to life - Predates "Bible Study" forum existance
Going to move to "Bible Study" forum.
Adminnemooseus

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 10 of 53 (473691)
07-01-2008 10:39 PM


Thread moved here from the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 11 of 53 (474081)
07-05-2008 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by sl33w
07-01-2008 8:48 PM


Re: Song of Solomon = Pornography
1) The obssession with "breast, navel, joint of the thigh, my hole" should convince anyone that it is pornography.
There is the danger that in the hands of some fleshy readers their interpretations tell not about the Bible so much but rather about themselves.
"All things are pure to the pure; yet to those who are defiled and unblelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience have been defiled. "(Titus 1:15)
People often pick up from the Bible wrongly what they themselves are occupied with. The words are pure and spiritual. But the mind of a man reflects the man.
This Song of Songs book about the love affair between Solomon and the feminine equivalent of Solomon "Shulamite" a country maiden. The poem portrays spiritual aspects of the progression and growth of a seeker of God.
The seekers of God belongs to a corporate and collective body which ia the romantic counterpart of God. It could be applied to God and Israel. But I think in New Testament times it speaks more to many of us as the love between Christ and the church which consists of both saved Gentiles and saved Jews. So it is prophetic.
It is definitely a book for those experienced in the spiritual life. I often feel that I am not ready for it even though I have been through more than one indepth study of it.
2) It is also apocryphal.
Eshter and Song of Solomon contain none of the names of God.
F.F. Bruce, "Canon," wrote that many, both Jews and Christians, believed these two books were apocryphal.
It was considered apocryphal because some books were slow to be accepted as divinely inspired canon. Canonicity is not something assigned or bestowed to a book by God's people. It was something recognized in a book by His saints.
Though some books were slow to be recognized as divinely authoritative, they eventually were recognized as such. Song of Songs was such a book.
And appealingto F.F. Bruce kinfd of sounds impressive. However, I am pretty sure that if you read all that F.F. Bruce had to say he would probably have indicated that Song of Songs is part of the Old Testament Canon and was recognized and vindicated as the word of God.
3) John 21.23-25 is also Atheism. Jesus said that he (John) would remain until I come, vs 22. Then vss 23-25 explained that Jesus lied.
That has nothing to do with the subject matter. And it is also nonsense.
Like I said, you are somewhat of a sensationalist like one of the cheaper Tabloid magazines one sees on the way out of the super market.
What does John 21 have to do with this discussion on the Songs of Songs anyway?
John 21 just includes some backround to a rumor that spread among the disciples. They were human and were subject to misunderstandings too. There is nothing there about Jesus lying.
That's skeptic hype.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sl33w, posted 07-01-2008 8:48 PM sl33w has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sl33w, posted 07-05-2008 2:45 PM jaywill has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 12 of 53 (474085)
07-05-2008 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Me
09-05-2002 8:34 AM


Re-Song
Me writes:
Why can't it be a collection of love songs, and nothing else?
Why can't it be a book to prove a point. Here was a man who had everything and he talks about a lot of it in the Song.
Solomon performed and experiment (wine, women, and song, if it feels good do it) and came to the following conclusion.
Eccl 1:14 (KJV) I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
We could save ourselves a lot of problem's by learning from Solomon's mistakes.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Me, posted 09-05-2002 8:34 AM Me has not replied

  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 5732 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 13 of 53 (474122)
07-05-2008 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jaywill
07-05-2008 8:42 AM


Re: Song of Solomon = Pornography
To the little "captive", Jaywiil
1) You cannot speak without reciting the "blasphemies of the Beast (Papacy)".
Why do you persist in repeating the "exposed" lies of the Beast.
Quote: "to the pure all things are pure."
That sure leaves you out. The word, "church" is not in the Bible! But you seem fascinated with it.
"The throne of the God and of the Lamb is in Her (New Jerusalem)" - Rev 22.3
A)The God and the Lamb founded New Jerusalem, the kingdom of God on earth, and in heaven.
B) The Papacy founded the church.
C) "Outside the dogs and the sorcerers and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and all of the [ones] loving and dong a lie" - Rev 22.15.
And your reply contained many lies. Besides that you are guilty of "unrighteous judgment and slander."
D) You insinuated that you know that I am wrong because I have a dirty mind. But then, you presented no proof that I was wrong on a single statement. Your name-calling is similar to the Pharisees slandering Iesous because they could not withstand His teaching.
Iesous taught "judge not" (Mt 7.1), and again, "do judge" (Mt 7.15).
I will share with you my understanding of the matter.
A) Mt 7.1 was about thinking that you have the power equal to God, to judge thoughts (as you claimed the power to read my dirty mind).
B) Mt 7.15 is about judging the external things, such as words and deeds (as I have judged your deed of reciting the blasphemies of the Beast/Papacy).
C) Your defense of Song of Solomon did not address any of the "dirty" words.
D) Your denial of F.F. Bruce had no documentation.
E) Your denial of Atheism in John 21.23-25 was word-for-word from the Pope. This fact is historically documented. Do you ever read any other history, other than from the Pope?
You are obssessed with, "Speculative Theoogy."
You are incensed against, "The word of the God."
You are on the losing side!
But the Extremely Loving (agape)), and merciful God of all allows men to change. You do not need to remain a loser with the Pope.
sl33w

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jaywill, posted 07-05-2008 8:42 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jaywill, posted 07-06-2008 8:38 AM sl33w has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 14 of 53 (474175)
07-06-2008 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by sl33w
07-05-2008 2:45 PM


Re: Song of Solomon = Pornography
To the little "captive", Jaywiil
I enjoy being a little captive of Jesus Christ. I need to be captured more and more by Jesus.
Do you think I see in anything you write a great example of "freedom?"
1) You cannot speak without reciting the "blasphemies of the Beast (Papacy)".
I haven't said anything which has anything to do with the Papacy.
Why do you persist in repeating the "exposed" lies of the Beast.
That's a loaded question like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Quote: "to the pure all things are pure."
That sure leaves you out. The word, "church" is not in the Bible! But you seem fascinated with it.
Yes, I know that I really need Christ to be my purity. You're right about me not being left out. I need my thoughts cleansed in His precious blood of redemption to study any part of this holy Bible. including the Song of Songs.
What about you?
The EKKLESIA in Greek is the church. A called out assembly is translated church. It is used for Isreal in one place at least in the New Testment. It is used for the body of believers which Christ the Son of God brought into existence. I think it is even used in one place for an unruly crowd having nothing to do with spirituality.
Of course my usage of church relates to the Body of Christ. It relates to those who have been redeemed by Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit and constitute His mystical Body.
In the end of the Bible the New Jerusalem is the enlarged and expanded church. The church is for eternity.
No, the Pope didn't invent the church.
"The throne of the God and of the Lamb is in Her (New Jerusalem)" - Rev 22.3
A)The God and the Lamb founded New Jerusalem, the kingdom of God on earth, and in heaven.
B) The Papacy founded the church.
No the Papacy did not found the church.
The Papacy tried to make a World Wide Public congregation called the Roman Catholic Church. It was in fact another division.
The churches in the New Testament were established accordingto cities - the church in Ephesus, the church in Jerusalem, the church in Antioch, the church in Smyrna, the church in Philippi, etc.
The churches were established one per city. What Roman Catholicism did was try to make the most important Empire ciry- Rome, the head of all the churches on earth. So instead of the church in Rome there arose an heresy and an abbaration - the Roman Catholic Church.
This was taing a worldly method not ordained by God to make the major city of the Roman Empire the Mother Church of all the local churches on the earth.
But neither Catholicism nor the Popes invented the church. The New Testament church came about on the day of Pentecost in the book of Acts. The first local church was the church in Jerusalem.
There are two aspects to the church - Universal and local. Jesus speaks of the church throughout all places and all times in Matthew 16:18. This is the universal church which includes all the redeemed of Christ throughout all ages and all places. She is universal. Then He speaks about the practical local church in Matthew 18:17. This is the practical local church because you can take your problem to it and discuss it.
You cannot take your practical problem to the universal church as you can to the local church. So when Jesus says "But if he does not listen to you, take with you one or two more, that by the word of mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to hear the church also, ..."
You cannot take your personal and practical problem with another disciple to the universal church which knows no particular geographic boundary. You cannot tell your problem to Paul, or Peter, or Calvin or all the saints in the universal church as in Matthew 16. But you can tell your problem to the local church.
So both the universal and the local aspect of the church were taught in the Gospels by Jesus. This was long before the emergence of the Papacy.
C) "Outside the dogs and the sorcerers and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and all of the [ones] loving and dong a lie" - Rev 22.15.
And your reply contained many lies. Besides that you are guilty of "unrighteous judgment and slander."
Point out a lie that I wrote. And if you cannot I expect you to retract your charce.
This charge of lying is uncalled for and also false. But you have a opportunity to show me what lie I lied. If not I expect an apology.
D) You insinuated that you know that I am wrong because I have a dirty mind. But then, you presented no proof that I was wrong on a single statement. Your name-calling is similar to the Pharisees slandering Iesous because they could not withstand His teaching.
Iesous taught "judge not" (Mt 7.1), and again, "do judge" (Mt 7.15).
I will share with you my understanding of the matter.
If you are a typical fallen sinner as I am also then sure, your mind can get dirty and often is.
I admit that without the mercy of God and the filling of the Holy Spirit my mind is often dirty. And I bet your's is also. Fallen man has a heart and a mind which is defiled.
You came on hard calling the Song of Songs pornography. Don't be offended if someone insinuates that you may be reading your own defiled thoughts into the book.
There is plenty of worldy poetry about romantic love. I bet you don't go out of your way to call D.H. Lawrence pornography. I think you're interested in sounding provocative and sensationalist.
I don't think you are ready to study the Song of Songs. I don't think you could appreciate the rich symbolism embodied in it at this point.
A) Mt 7.1 was about thinking that you have the power equal to God, to judge thoughts (as you claimed the power to read my dirty mind).
The way I wrote that I said that there was a danger of doing so. That is different from me specifically calling you dirty minded.
Look again at how I phrased it. It was phrased in such a way that it could also include myself. I said that there was a danger that the book could be taken that way. We need to be pure in heart.
This is what I wrote:
There is the danger that in the hands of some fleshy readers their interpretations tell not about the Bible so much but rather about themselves.
"All things are pure to the pure; yet to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience have been defiled. "(Titus 1:15)
People often pick up from the Bible wrongly what they themselves are occupied with. The words are pure and spiritual. But the mind of a man reflects the man.
I did not mention you specifically. And I wrote as not to automatically exclude even myself. But it was a warning to all.
You seem to want to be scandelous by writing Song of Solomon = Pornography.
To be pure in this sense really means to be single to want God and God alone. A single eye is an eye focused on one thing. There are of course many sexual symbols in the Song of Songs. But it is about the spiritual pursuit of God and Christ.
God's people are mentioned as His Spouse a number of times in the Bible. So it is the Divine thought of God that His people consitute His spouse in a divine romance -
Isaiah 54:6;
Jeremiah 3:1;
Ezekiel 16:8;
Hosea 2:19;
Second Corinthians 11:2;
Ephesians 5:31-32;
These passages all speak of the redeemed of God as His Spouse. Song of Songs is the book dedicated to the full development of this idea.
For you to dismiss it as pornography is more than superfiscial.
You are not ready to study a book like Song of Songs yet.
B) Mt 7.15 is about judging the external things, such as words and deeds (as I have judged your deed of reciting the blasphemies of the Beast/Papacy).
This discussion is about the Song of Songs. The Beast and the Papacy may be your favorite topic to talk about. But this discussion is on the Song of Songs.
C) Your defense of Song of Solomon did not address any of the "dirty" words.
I don't feel the need to add much to what I already told you. I said that it is superficial to dismiss SS as pornography. And there is a danger that we read our own defilted and fleshy lust into it.
D) Your denial of F.F. Bruce had no documentation.
I didn't deny that F.F. Bruce said that it was not accepted in the Canon. I said if you read on my bet is the F.F. Acknowledges that Song of Songs is NOW in the canon of inspired books of the Bible.
First prove that F.F. Bruce does NOT presently or did not FINALLY tell you that Song of Songs is a canonical book. Prove that FIRST. Then I will restract my statement a wrong with apology. But if you cannot prove that F.F. Bruce recignizes Song of Songs as canonical then at best all you did was say that F.F. Bruce taught that the book had difficulty being accepted in the OT canon. It was late to be accepted. That is all.
Now its your turn to prove to ME what the final verdict of the scholar F.F. Bruce was concerning the canonicity of Song of Songs.
E) Your denial of Atheism in John 21.23-25 was word-for-word from the Pope. This fact is historically documented. Do you ever read any other history, other than from the Pope?
Do you read the Gospel of John?
Demonstrate to be the teaching of Atheism anywhere in JOhn 21:23-25. What are you talking about?
By what exegitical analysis do you find Atheism being taught anywhere, for that matter, in John's Gospel? Where is the Atheism taught in the twenty first chapter?
You are obssessed with, "Speculative Theoogy."
Whatever. You have a little homework to do. Reply to me concerning:
1.) F.F. Bruce's FINAL verdict on the Song of Songs.
2.) Show me the Atheism taught in John 21.
Who knows? Maybe I'll turn out to be convinced. But at present I have serious doubts.
You show me that F.F. Bruce had his last verdict on the Song of Songs NOT being an Old Testament canonical book and you'll get a big apology from me.
Otherwise you'll get a "See? I told you so."
You are incensed against, "The word of the God."
You are on the losing side!
The word of God has taken care of itself for a long time.
The word of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.
Losing side? Do your homework first then we'll see if on these issues I am on the losing side or not.
But the Extremely Loving (agape)), and merciful God of all allows men to change. You do not need to remain a loser with the Pope.
I know that God changes people. He transforms people. He initiates the change.
Let's be specific here. On the issue of F.F, Bruce and the alledged Atheism in John 21 we will see who is on the losing side after you do a little homework to back up these charges.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sl33w, posted 07-05-2008 2:45 PM sl33w has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by sl33w, posted 07-07-2008 12:27 AM jaywill has not replied

  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 5732 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 15 of 53 (474232)
07-07-2008 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jaywill
07-06-2008 8:38 AM


Re: Song of Solomon = Pornography
I cannot communicate with jaywill because of our different languages.
1) I "speak as words of God" - 1Pet 4.11.
2) jaywill speaks substituting pagan words (usually from the Papacy)for the words of God.
Church Lies
I. “Iesous” (977 times).
1) The NKJV Greek English Interlinear NT, Thomas Nelson, 1994, Mt 3.15, p. 8, “Iesous.”
2) The Interlinear Bible, 1994, Trinitarian Bible Society, Mt 3.15, p. 7, “Iesous.”
3) Strong’s Concordance, 1895, Greek word #2424, “Iesous.”
4) Young’s Analytical Concordance, 1874, p. 541, “Iesous.”
5) The Latin Vulgate, Jerome, AD 405, “Iesous” corrupted to read, “Iesus.”
6) Geneva Bible, 1599. Mt 3.15, “Iesus.”
7) 1611 Edition, “To the Most High and Mightie Prince, Iames by the grace of God”, p/ 6 (of unnumbered front pages); Mt 1.1, ”Iesus.”
8*) Rheims NT, Revised 1749, Mt 3.15, p. 5, “Jesus.” NOTE: This was the earliest Bible translation with the letter, “J” and with the name “Jesus.” All names beginning with the letter, “I” (such as “Iesous”) were changed to the letter, “J” in the NT. All names beginning with the letter “Y” were changes to names beginning with the letter “J” in the OT.
II. “Anointed” (490 times).
“Christos”, translated, “Anointed,” was corrupted to read, “Christ” by the writers of the Papacy.
III. “From Calling” (114 times).
“From Calling” (ek klesia) was corrupted to read, “church,” in Old English (AD 1100 - AD 1400).
Every time “Jaywill” opens his mouth, he lies against the Living God and the Living Word of the God.
That is a lot of continuos lying on his part.
When I was young (before 50 years of age), I kept my mouth shut, and you can learn a lot like that. When the mouth is in action, the learning process is impossible.
sl33w

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jaywill, posted 07-06-2008 8:38 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Archer Opteryx, posted 07-07-2008 8:14 AM sl33w has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024