Results 541 - 560 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
541 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228075 | ||
Biblicalman, Let me just focus on your questions to me rather than try to respond to everything you said. If you think I'm avoiding a key point you wish to make then just repeat it and draw my attention to it and I'll respond. I have no intention of avoiding your points, but giving due time where I think its needed. 1.) You said "Why do you think in the Old Testament that a man who had sexual relations with an unmarried woman was forced to marry her?" But look at what you are saying and what you have said. You yourself have just said that as a result of the sex he was forced to marry her, but previously you have been arguing that the act of sex actually did make them married in God's eyes! It can't be both. So I turn the question back to you. If the act of sex ment they were already married in God's eyes, why then were they forced to marry? 2.) You asked, "Why was divorce permissible after adultery? for the same reason. The relationship of marriage had been broken by the sexual act." I think this is completely wrong. Look at Matthew 19 with me. Mat 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, Mat 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? Mat 19:6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Mat 19:7 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" Mat 19:8 He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. Now this is going to be a string of exegesis so I beg readers to give their best effort to follow me. They ask Jesus, if God has indeed made the two one flesh then why did Moses permit divorce? Now where on earth did Moses discuss divorce? You will find nowhere that these Jews could be referrring to (correct me if I'm wrong) other than Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Now take a look at that passage. I'd paste it but I fear I'd run out of space. Here he never says anything about divorce directly but assumes it. He says that if a man takes a wife an he finds indecency in her (she's found to be sexually impure) and then if he does put her away and then if she marries again and then she is later single again, he is forbidden to remarry his ex-wife. So here it is. We have Moses implicitly allowing for divorce when a wife is unfaithful. This then is what is being discussed in Matthew 19, now back to that passage with this Old Testament context in mind. They ask Christ why Moses allowed divorce in the case of a sexually defiled wife. Christ's answer is key. He says that Moses allowed it due to the hardness of their heart, but from the beginning it wasn't that way. So lets consider that answer. First, Jesus makes the point that even when a wife was unfaithful, divorce was permitted then only due to the man's shortcomings. Second, divorce in the face of marital unfaithfulness was NOT the original model. So we see that divorce when a spouse is unfaithful is a undesirable, unnatural, allowance by the law because mankind's heart can so seldom love in spite of this great wrong. Now here is my question. If this is the case how on earth can anybody say that because of the adultery the marriage is inherently and already severed!? No, the plan of marriage in its ideal form is that the husband is faithful and united to the woman even in the face of such betrayal. The adultery does not break the marriage. But God, because of our inability to love rightly, allows us the choice to break the marriage in the face of such betrayal. So, God's original design for marriage is NOT marriage is over when adultery happens, but rather a constant union not matter what and that means no matter what. But the law later comes along and reluctantly adds the option to divorce when adultery happens due to the fact that our hard hearts often fall short of loving as it ought to. Sexual sin does not sever a marriage in and of itself. So I say again, scripture does not bear out what you are saying. I agree that "becomming one flesh" is at the essence of marriage, but that doesn't mean we can read into 1 Cor 16 everything you are saying. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
542 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228083 | ||
Biblicalman, Since you have given no scripture to support any of your statements (with the exceptions of the original one in question) there is really nothing further to discuss. You have only restated what you have already said and failed to give any additional biblical support for it. All I can say is that this elaborate scheme is not stated in scripture. The scripture which I have brought forward you have dismissed with statements such as, "Thus what you are describing as marriage is the lesser version which is not real marriage.." How on earth does one respond to such a statment that has no basis in scripture? Between such dismissals of passages I bring forward and you providing no scriptural support for what you are saying, we are left to discuss our own imaginations which is pointless. All I can say in order to end on a positive note is that this is not a fellowship breaking issue and you have my sincere Christian affections. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
543 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228095 | ||
Biblicalman, I was referring to what had been your most recent post rather than the entire thread. Post ID# 228078. However, at your encouragement I did look back over the entire thread to see if I had been unfair and found that you gave nothing in the way of scriptures other than your set of "the two shall become one flesh" passages (Gen 2:24, 1 Cor 6:16, and Mark 10:8), which ofcourse the entire thread is questioning your interpretation of those passages. With regards to your dismissals, what I mean is your responses to my bringing up John 4 and Matthew 19. With regards to John 4 your response was that this was "worldly speaking" and that we can not take them seriously. This inspite of that we take the other things said to this woman by Christ quite seriously indeed. In Matthew 19 you simply said that he was talking about a lesser mode of marriage?? There is no sustaining a serious discussion when every passage that seems to reject what you are saying are so lightly dismissed without real discussion. I do not deny that you have a model with which you are explaining yourself. However, your entire arguement requires that we first before any exegesis to assume that all the things in scripture were said because of your prior framework. For example, you pointed out that they were forced to marry after sex. However, there is nothing whatsoever in that text that leads us to assume that the reason they were to marry is that sex formed a marriage bond. Your exegesis forces us to come to the passage already accpeting your framework in order for us to come to the conclusion you are coming to. However, the passage itself does not lend to that interpretation. Let's see it, and yes, I did recognize the reference. Deu 22:28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. Now, your assumption is that they must marry because in God's eyes the sex formed the marriage. But the passage actually tells us the "why." It says, "because he has violated her." Now many interpreters see this to point to something quite different. The fact is that she is no longer a virgin, and her opportunity of being married has severly diminished. For this reason the man must fulfill the role of husband to her. And beyond this, if the reason was simply that the sex formed the marriage in God's eyes, then the inability to divorce her later should she be unfaithful has no explination. Now whether you disagree with that interpretation or not (I know you don't) the point is that NOTHING in the passage or exegesis is pushing you to your interpretation over this one except your already pre-attained conclusion before you come to the passage. And this is the only reason to read any of the passages the way you do. These are the types of things I was referring to, not simply a score of who has quoted more scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
544 | regulation regarding tattooing | 1 Cor 6:19 | Beja | 228271 | ||
Beja, Here is a place where I think Paul is setting a principle as well, not merely a single effect statement. 1Co 7:18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. So we see that cuts or marks or doing something to the body is absolutely irrelevant. If we have them, we should not seek to remove them as if doing so would improve our standing with God. If we don't have them, we should not seek to gain them as if gaining them improved our standing with the Lord. None of these things mean anything and are indeed left over notions from Jewish ceremonial laws. I agree whole heartedly that our body is a temple which we should not defile. But Christ has clearly taught us what defiles us! Mat 15:18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. Mat 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. Mat 15:20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." All the other things that supposidly "defile" the body or man were but pictures so we could understand the concept of defilement. The purpose was that we might have the proper categories to understand sin and its effects on us and our need for clensing. It is the heart and the sin of the heart or the righteousness of the heart. We defile the temple of our body by the sinfulness of our hearts and minds and actions, not by ink. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
545 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 223992 | ||
Brad and amour, I still can't make up my mind whether I agree with you on this. At least to be fair, we should admit to the fact that this was prohibited in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. (lev 18:19) However, the question then becomes how does this translate towards us under the new covenant. There are infact somethings that no longer apply to us as believers. Certain ceremonies, washings, festivals, food restrictions etc. where all meant to point forward to Christ in various ways, and as such are no longer something to be observed now that the reality has come. Colossians 2:16,17 "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day, things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." However, there are some things in the old testament that are certainly still valid to us today. Nobody would argue we are freed from things such as the commands not to murder, steal, or commit adultery. We are free in the sense that we not longer dwell under the ability of such laws to condemn us, if we are in Christ, but not free in the sense that those things cease to be our expected morality. The question I have, when you read through Leviticus 19, do those seem to be things pointing to Christ or do those things seem to be things that are actually in and of themselves abominable to God? I would suggest the ONLY one in that list that you would even consider saying is acceptable is the very one we are discussing. So it does seem likely that it should be viewed in the same way. Amour, I wish I could condense this into a concise answer, but unavoidably this runs into the much bigger question of how do we apply the old testament to Christians today. I have given you some strong hints on how I think about it, but unavoidably we are going to disagree about it here on this forum. What I do think we can all agree on is that if your conscience is not comfortable with it, then you should not do it. (Romans 14:22,23). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
546 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 223995 | ||
BradK, I ofcourse believe completely that our acceptance to God is based upon us being in Christ, and nothing other than this. However, just because I say that God expects us to behaive to a certain standard, does not mean that I am making that standard the means of salvation. It would be like me asking you if you believe that its ok for us to commit murder? You ofcourse would reply that it is not ok for us to commit murder. What if I then turned around and said you were suggesting we are saved and accepted before God baised on us not murdering? You would rightly reply that is completely unfounded. Your saying we are suppose to not murder in no way implies that you think this is the very grounds of our acceptance before God. The same goes for what I am saying. Just because I say we ought not do something, does not mean I am suggesting that it is the grounds for our acceptance before God. Now, as to your stating that nothing in Leviticus 18 is expected of the church. How would you reply to a member of your church who wanted your congregation to accept his practicing beastiality? I would personally turn to Leviticus 18:23. But you claim that Leviticus 18 has no application to us. How than will you respond? Nowhere in the new testament is bestiality addressed? Will you try to argue that it is implied in fornication or sexual immorality? What then if I said sexual immorality and fornication only applied to intercourse with men and women? How would you refute it if not to say that leviticus 18 is the biblical notion of sexual morality? Or would you agree that bestiality is acceptable conduct for a christian? (For any who are misreading me, I completely deny that beastiality is acceptable for a christian!) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
547 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 224005 | ||
Bradk, So you are saying that your earlier thoughts were not a blanket statement on all the commands given to Israel, but something in particular about leviticus 18 makes it not for the church? I'm not sure how appealing to Leviticus 20 is different from appealing to Leviticus 18? I do hope you understand that I was in no way suggesting you accepted such a thing as beastiality. My line of reasoning was meant to suggest that your stance lead to a conclusion which you certainly would not accept so that you would rethink the stance. So my reasoning was based on the assumption that you would utterly reject such a thing. I read your bio for the first time, I very much enjoyed it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
548 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 224012 | ||
Freeatlast, I'm not sure I was able to follow the point of your post. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then it seems you and I are agreeing. Also what translation are you using? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
549 | Buddha statue in a house of a christian. | 1 Cor 8:1 | Beja | 214353 | ||
Let me answer with another question. Do you think that it could cause a younger Christian, who fails to grasp that Buddha is nothing and that the decoration is nothing more than an item, could it cause such a one who sees it in your house to stumble? 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10 might be good reading for you. Romans 14 also. As for me, I don't judge you for it but... Rom 14:6 "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." In Love, Beja |
||||||
550 | Exact meaning of Biblical "The Lord" | 1 Cor 8:6 | Beja | 221567 | ||
Cathy, 1 Cor 8:6 might be a good verse to look at. Also Christ is continually referred to as Lord throughout the new testament. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
551 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 232989 | ||
00123, It is my personal belief that this passage states that Jesus did drink wine of the alchololic variety. Mat 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." This was contrasted with John the baptist who came "neither eating nor drinking." Now I doubt it meant that John the Baptist had found a way to survive apart from food and water. The notion seems to be with regards to eating in some kind of festive context and alcoholic beverage. Therefore if that is its reference in the previous verse, I must conclude that it is what Jesus meant in this verse. Also it gives the basis of the Pharisee's wrongly accusing him of drunkeness. I am NOT suggesting that Jesus was ever drunk. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
552 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 232996 | ||
00123, I grant that the accussation of the pharisee's was unfounded. But it was Christ who said that he "came drinking" and that John came "not drinking." So whatever Jesus meant here by that is true, not speculation. Those words do mean something. It is my opinion that their meaning directly answers your question. Here is why I think it answers your question. What possible meaning can we give to Jesus' statement that he "came drinking" which denies his consumption of alcohol and yet given that denial still makes sense of both John's "not drinking" and the reasonableness of the comparison being made in the passage. Here is an illustration of my point. Suppose somebody said: By saying he "came drinking" what Jesus really meant was that he was drinking grape juice. Then we have to say that "not drinking" for John was about him abstaining from grape juice. This makes little sense, and it doesn't make any sense of why Jesus would bring this up. A debate over obstaining from grape juice makes no sense. I can't think of any explination of the passage that doesn't break down unless we suggest that Christ did drink alcoholic beverages. And that this is exactly what he meant we he himself said that he "came drinking." At that point it makes perfect sense. The point then is that the pharisees were going to accuse of misconduct no matter what Jesus did. John didn't feast and drink alcoholic beverages and they called him a demon possessed fanatic. Jesus used such things in moderation and yet they accussed him in overindulgance with regards to both. He was in their estimate a glutton and a drunkard. There was no pleasing them no matter what path he took. Now you may think I'm wrong and that my exegisis of the passage falls very short, and that does not offend me. However I am attempting to give you a biblical answer. You might suggest my answer to be foolish, myself to be ignorant of facts, my tehcnique guilty of poorly interpreting scripture or several other possibilities, and all of these accusations may be true, but the one thing I am doing is answering you from scripture just like you requested. I am sorry it was unhelpful to you though, and I hope you are able to get a more productive answer from another member of the forum. (I say none of this in sarcasm.) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
553 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 232997 | ||
Doc, You might be interested to know that the denomination which I recently left would have a very serious disagreement in anybody not using unlevened bread. Though I do not challenge your point. : ) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
554 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233004 | ||
Tim, Yes, that was a possibility I had considered. Personally, coming to the passage with no prior theological reasons to object to Jesus drinking wine (since I don't see scripture as forbidding it), I simply find the passage to be more coherant when understanding the reference to regard alcohol rather than grape juice. That being said I readily concede to your point that we can't be dogmatic about it. In fact, even if we could know for certain I believe this is one issue scripture actually commands us not to be dogmatic about. This is specifically one of the examples in Romans 14 concerning which we are to not cause trouble and division over. However, in this case scripture pertaining to the issue was specifically asked for. Also I personally do not drink, so I have no real incentive to press the point. And I certainly don't announce from the pulpit that I think Jesus drank. ;-) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
555 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233005 | ||
Doc, Ironically I am reading Calvin on the sacraments in the institutes. I'll let you know if I he is for a specific type of grape. Haha. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
556 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233006 | ||
Searcher, We are speaking of unleavened/leavened bread in jest but in all sincerity the first time my wife and I was exposed to the Lord's supper with leavened bread it was a complete shock to us. We actually had to take a minute to pause and evaluate whether we thought it was right to do so. If I recall right, I had decided it was fine by the time that it came around to me but my wife had not yet settled her conscience on it in that brief time so she abstained. We had just never heard of such a thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
557 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233014 | ||
00123, Given your response to my post 232996, I'm a little surprised at your reasoning here. Wouldn't it be safe to say that your mind is quite resolved on this issue? I have always found that some of the worst fights happen on this forum when people ask questions for which they are already pursuaded on a particular view. It ends up being nothing but bait for an arguement, a way to get the forum onto the topic desired. I don't accuse you of intending such, but it seems this thread is close to following the pattern. And since it has a track record of being a very unedifying pattern I considered it worth pointing out to the participants. Of course you are all big boys/girls and can make up your own mind. God bless. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
558 | speaking in tounges | 1 Cor 12:30 | Beja | 214993 | ||
Paul is clear that not all Christians receive the gift of speaking in tongues (1 Cor 12:30). 1 Cor 12 would be a great chapter for you to read. The people who told you this are flat mistaken, speaking in tongues is not an issue that shows you do or do not have the Holy Spirit. In Love, Beja |
||||||
559 | speaking in tounges | 1 Cor 12:30 | Beja | 215111 | ||
Dear Azure, While you are getting at something very important in your post, namely that the focus should be on the edification of others, your post concerns me on one account. I very well may be misreading your post but I get the impression that you are saying something along the lines of: -Paul was catagorically dismissing speaking in tongues as an intrussion of pagan religion into Christianity. The main evidence that it is not truely a spiritual gift was that it does not edify other men.- Now, if I've misread you, forgive me. However, if I am correct allow me to give you a few verses to consider. 1 Cor 14:5 "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues but even more that you would prophesy." While Paul clearly says that tongues is a less desirable gift in comparison to the ones that edify the Church as a whole, he still claims it is a desirable gift. Next, he even claims this as a gift he participates in. 1 Cor 14:18 "I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all" And if there is any doubt whether he was referring to a speaking in tongues that others could not understand he continues in the next verse to say... 1 Cor 14:19 "however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue." So while you are touching on a very much needed point in charismatic circles, namely that they have over desired and over emphasized speaking in tongues rather than gifts that edify the church, do not go so far as to read Paul as condeming this as a non Christian gift. For Paul's summary is this: Pursue love, desire prophecy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. (1 Cor 14:1,39) But as I said, if I've misread your statements, forgive me. In Love, Beja |
||||||
560 | speaking in tounges | 1 Cor 12:30 | Beja | 215115 | ||
Dear Strts5, The reason that there is confusion over this is that in Greek a noun can be "definite" without the article. There are many reasons that it can be so. The one probably in light here is the idea of a proper noun. There is enough parallel in english that we could understand this. For example when you say, "I'm reading a post from, Beja." You do not understand it as "a Beja" but rather "the Beja." The one and only is still in mind even without the article. This happens in greek also along with many other reasons a noun can be "definite" without the article. In Love, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Next > Last [40] >> |