Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 2:29 PM
177 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge, Meddle, RAZD, ringo, Tangle (9 members, 168 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,581 Year: 2,618/19,786 Month: 700/1,918 Week: 288/266 Day: 25/35 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   Where does literalism end and interpretation begin?
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2153 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 61 of 96 (293401)
03-08-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
03-08-2006 2:09 PM


Paul is God's representative in the writing of what I believe to be God's inspired word. Nothing is overridden. It all has meaning in its proper place.

if you read more history faith you would know the early christians followed the laws of the jews, infact it was part of being a christian. That was till paul came along and wanted to include gentiles, guess what? the gentiles wouldn't follow the jewish laws so paul took the laws out. It was paul not god overwriting gods word

The moral law (the ten commandments which include condemnation of sexual sin including homosexual sin) are not abrogated as the ceremonial laws are (the sacrifices, priestly conduct, food laws, feasts and fasts and other observances, etc), but they are also fulfilled in Christ, fulfilled so that all of our moral sins, including homosexual sin, are forgiven and not held against us at the Judgment, but ONLY if we have given ourselves to him. The moral law continues to judge those outside of Christ.

where does it say that homosexual sex is condemmed by the ten commandments? or is it your unspoken eleventh commandment, "thou shall not have teh butt sex?"
they are not 'ceremonial laws' faith ask any jewish person how important the laws are to them in thier knowlege of god, just because you do not follow them doesn't give you the right to call them ceremonial.
I'm trying to think but i believe i read that only 7 matter i think the first three have to do with worshiping yehwah and have nothing to do with your moral law

This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-08-2006 05:22 PM

This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-08-2006 05:37 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 2:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:33 PM ReverendDG has responded

    
Heathen
Member (Idle past 58 days)
Posts: 1042
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 62 of 96 (293413)
03-08-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 5:03 PM


Re: Problems with the OP
robin writes:

What interpretation involves is a judgement about the meaning based on certain assumptions and whatever evidence there is.


Agreed.
so.. by your own definition, Everyone who reads the bible makes a judgement about the meaning based upon certain assumptions and whatever evidence there is.
In my eyes that leave it wide open to misinterpretation.
That leaves a big question mark over the truth of the word.

So... two biblical literalists could concievable have differing views as to the teaching and meaning of the bible?

robin writes:

"once upon a time" suggests an unidentified time and place.


I would suggest that "in the beginning" remains rather undefined.
the beginning of what? the beginning of God? the beginning of time?
does this then suggest that this is a fable?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 5:03 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 11:18 AM Heathen has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 96 (293427)
03-08-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Heathen
03-08-2006 3:36 PM


I'm not aware the ten commandments have anything to say about homosexuality

The Ten Commandments are to be taken as categories of sin, and Thou shalt not commit adultery includes all kinds of sexual sin. The more specific sins spelled out in the Pentateuch all can be subsumed under the Ten Commandments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 3:36 PM Heathen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:20 PM Faith has responded

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 58 days)
Posts: 1042
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 64 of 96 (293429)
03-08-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
03-08-2006 6:16 PM


faith writes:

Thou shalt not commit adultery includes all kinds of sexual sin


Firstly... this is exactly the type of Interpretation i had in mind when I opened this thread. what, exactly, tells you that this commandment refers to all sexual sin?

Secondly By your logic if a gay married couple were to engage in sex it would be ok? (or is there a separate commandment forbidding gay marriage?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:22 PM Heathen has not yet responded
 Message 67 by Asgara, posted 03-08-2006 6:28 PM Heathen has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:35 PM Heathen has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 96 (293430)
03-08-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nwr
03-08-2006 5:02 PM


Re: Fable or history
This merely proves what I said. It is because of the CONTENT of the stories that you reject them as literal historical accounts.

Lets see:

magical trees;

it makes no sense for God to create the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if Adam was not supposed to eat of that tree;

the talking serpent;

God lied ("thou shalt surely die") and the serpent told the truth;

the flaming sword that turned every way - surely the creator could just have the tree of life die and its fruit shrivel up and become useless;

What's your point? OK by me if you continue to prove me right that you refuse to believe it because of the content.

You just can't abide talking snakes as a possible reality, ...
======
As history, it makes no sense whatsoever. As a fable it makes perfect sense (a "Just So" story on the human condition and what distinguishes us from other animals).

Yes, you can't stand what it says, that's why you refuse to believe it. As I said.

Faith's idea of God: a liar and incompetent bungling fool.

Obviously this is your opinion of God and someday you'll get to tell him to his face.

My idea of God: one who gave us brains and intended us to use them.

And if he thinks the right use of them would be to trust his revelation to us you'll be in trouble.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nwr, posted 03-08-2006 5:02 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 96 (293431)
03-08-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Heathen
03-08-2006 6:20 PM


If you want to send me a couple of bucks plus postage I'll send you a CD on the subject from my church.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:20 PM Heathen has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 345 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 67 of 96 (293434)
03-08-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Heathen
03-08-2006 6:20 PM


Sex outside of marriage is fornication. It is when two people not married to each other have sex.

Adultery is specifically when one of the sex partners is married to someone else.

It does not refer to any other supposed sexual sin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:20 PM Heathen has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 96 (293436)
03-08-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ReverendDG
03-08-2006 5:21 PM


if you read more history faith you would know the early christians followed the laws of the jews, infact it was part of being a christian. That was till paul came along and wanted to include gentiles, guess what? the gentiles wouldn't follow the jewish laws so paul took the laws out. It was paul not god overwriting gods word

If you had more respect for orthodox theology you would know that the early Jews did continue to follow the laws of the Jews and that Paul himself supported them because their conscience was bound up in those laws, not because they were any longer necessary. When Paul preaches that we are not to stumble the weaker brother by insisting on Christian freedom from the law, that is what he meant -- we are to submit to one another's weaker conscience. If a person feels it is wrong to eat food sacrificed to idols, then we don't want to hurt their conscience and insist that they eat it, and should eat as they eat while with them, although we ourselves may be free of that superstition. This is brotherly love and this is what Paul preached.

And the understanding that the death of Christ paid every last jot and tittle of the Law Paul knew through knowing God, but only true believers are privileged to understand this. Obviously debunkers will never get it.

About homosexuality in the ten commandments see what I wrote to Creavolution above.

they are not 'ceremonial laws' faith ask any jewish person how important the laws are to them in thier knowlege of god, just because you do not follow them doesn't give you the right to call them ceremonial.

I don't think you have a clue what the term "ceremonial" even means. A Jew would be an idiot not to recognize that that term is descriptive.

I'm trying to think but i believe i read that only 7 matter i think the first three have to do with worshiping yehwah and have nothing to do with your moral law

Loving God and loving neighbor are the two tablets of the moral law, as Jesus said. You want to throw out the first tablet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 5:21 PM ReverendDG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 6:51 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 96 (293439)
03-08-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Heathen
03-08-2006 6:20 PM


Marriage is between a man and a woman, according to Jesus and according to Genesis. If marrying a divorced person is adultery, as Jesus said, then certainly two gays marrying is adultery.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:20 PM Heathen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:48 PM Faith has responded

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 58 days)
Posts: 1042
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 70 of 96 (293447)
03-08-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
03-08-2006 6:35 PM


faith writes:

Marriage is between a man and a woman, according to Jesus and according to Genesis.


can you please back this up with a quote?

faith writes:

If marrying a divorced person is adultery, as Jesus said, then certainly two gays marrying is adultery.


Why?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:53 PM Heathen has responded
 Message 75 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2006 8:50 PM Heathen has responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2153 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 71 of 96 (293452)
03-08-2006 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
03-08-2006 6:33 PM


If you had more respect for orthodox theology you would know that the early Jews did continue to follow the laws of the Jews and that Paul himself supported them because their conscience was bound up in those laws.

If you mean the early christians then yes i realize this, i said this faith. christianity was a jewish sect until the scizm between paul and peter over this, paul wanted to include the gentiles, thus would the jewish laws would have to be removed and peter wanted to include them because jesus taught they were useful. by the way i trust history of people who know about the christians and the jewish people during that time over pauline dogma.

And the understanding that the death of Christ paid every last jot and tittle of the Law Paul knew through knowing God, but only true believers are privileged to understand this. Obviously debunkers will never get it.

and the jews as well faith? pauline beliefs sure are depressing

About homosexuality in the ten commandments see what I wrote to Creavolution above.

as i said before where is it faith, it says adultery, do you know the meaning of the word? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery it must be an unknown 11th commandment "thou shalt not have teh butt sex"

I don't think you have a clue what the term "ceremonial" even means. A Jew would be an idiot not to recognize that that term is descriptive.

sorry i must have read it wrong, and took it to mean something else

Loving God and loving neighbor are the two tablets of the moral law, as Jesus said. You want to throw out the first tablet.

i sohuld have restated that, the hewbrews didn't care if gentiles followed the first 3 laws, this has nothing to do with jesus

This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-08-2006 06:52 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:55 PM ReverendDG has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 96 (293453)
03-08-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Heathen
03-08-2006 6:48 PM


You seem to be requiring the equivalent of a course or ten in the Bible. If you don't know the Bible well enough to know what Jesus said about adultery your question about where to draw the line on interpretation just requires way too much of your discussants.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:48 PM Heathen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 7:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 96 (293454)
03-08-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ReverendDG
03-08-2006 6:51 PM


Christians obey all the ten commandments and loving God is the highest of them all.

Paul was God's instrument, as inspired by God as any of the OT prophets and no believer will ever pit Paul against God. All of Paul's teachings came from God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 6:51 PM ReverendDG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2006 8:51 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 77 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 9:43 PM Faith has responded
 Message 79 by LinearAq, posted 03-09-2006 2:26 PM Faith has responded

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 58 days)
Posts: 1042
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 74 of 96 (293460)
03-08-2006 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
03-08-2006 6:53 PM


faith writes:

If you don't know the Bible well enough to know what Jesus said about adultery your question about where to draw the line on interpretation just requires way too much of your discussants.


I'm simply asking you to back up your assertions with relevant quotes.
seems fair to me.
If you can't back up the point you are trying to make you should ask yourself on what basis you believe it to be true.

I won't ask any more of you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3097
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 75 of 96 (293471)
03-08-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Heathen
03-08-2006 6:48 PM


I don't know about Jesus, but the comment about man being given a wife made out of his side (the hebew could mean either side or rib), does indicate that a man and wife is the ideal. (the flesh is one). However, the bible also has plenty of examples where men had multiple wives. The ideal is not a commandment in genesis.

I personally prefer the translation of 'SIDE' instead of 'RIB', because it indicates an equality (side by side) in a marriage, rather than a woman being in a subserviant role.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:48 PM Heathen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Heathen, posted 03-09-2006 2:09 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019