Results 61 - 80 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: rabban Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What was in the cup, wine? | Mark 14:25 | rabban | 192030 | ||
Hi You wrote "I thought that if alcohol was ingested and entered the bloodstream, the blood would be diluted w/ a foreign substance, making it into an altered state. I thought that Jesus would remain pure absolutely, making His sacrifice acceptable." The acceptability or otherwise of Jesus offering of Himself was dependent on His absolute obedience to the will of His Father (Hebrews 10.1-14). 'He was made sin, Who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him'(2 Corinthians 5.21). Nothing that enters the body and the bloodstream renders the natural body or blood unclean (Mark 7.1--21). Uncleanness is of the moral 'heart' (center of being). When we speak of the 'blood' of Jesus cleansing, we are really referring to the atonement and 'satisfaction' obtained through the shedding of His blood. The physical blood is irrelevant. The blood in the Old Testament was important for what it symbolised, a life given out in death. Thus Jesus was purer than the driven snow, a Lamb without spot or blemish.. In Him |
||||||
62 | Do this and you shall live | Luke 10:28 | rabban | 191849 | ||
Hi These words of Jesus were for all people at all times. In them we find summarised the full-orbed Christian life (Galatians 5.14). They describe fully the life of Jesus Christ. They should be the goal of each one of us in their strictest application. However, as you have rightly discerned, we all fall short of it by a large margin. By this we discover the truth about ourselves. We discover that 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God' (Romans 3.23). Thus if we are to find this life we have to come to God as sinners, admitting our sin and our helplessness, and seek forgiveness for our failure through the cross. We have to put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Once we truly do that all that Jesus describes here is imputed to us. We are accounted as righteous in His sight (Romans 3.34-25). And His righteousness is put to our account (2 Corinthians 5.21). From that moment on the Great Physician sets about our healing. We are made new creatures in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5.17). God begins to 'work in us to will and to do of His good pleasure' (Philippians 2.13). And gradually we will be transformed into His image (2 Corinthians 3.18; Ephesians 1.4-5; Romans 8.29 etc). And the wonderful thing is that through Him we then do this as those who have already 'inherited eternal life' (1 John 5.13). In Him |
||||||
63 | third temple built before Jesus returns? | John 2:19 | rabban | 191624 | ||
My view is that the Scriptures make quite clear that the third Temple is in Heaven. That is the message of the Book of Revelation. Its presence on earth was transferred to Jesus and the church. John 2.29-21 makes clear that Jesus had come to replace the Temple, and the result is that the church became the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3.16; 6.19; 2 Corinthians 6.16-18; Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.4-6). In the same way the true Jerusalem is also now in Heaven (Galatians 4.25-26; Hebrews 12.22). There are verses which superficially can be made to look as though a Temple will be built on earth but on examination they are clearly talking about the church (e.g. Revelation 11.1-13 which is talking about the church in the Sodomic Jerusalem). The Temple in Ezekiel 40 onwards was a heavenly Temple which proved that God had returned to His people, and was available to His returned people through the altar (which was the only part that they were told to build) and its final fulfilment is again in the church (chapter 47.1ff) and in Heaven. No doubt others will see it differently. It is one of the secondary matters on which thee is much controversy (hopefully friendly). |
||||||
64 | third temple built before Jesus returns? | John 2:19 | rabban | 191626 | ||
My view is that the Scriptures make quite clear that the third Temple is in Heaven. That is the message of the Book of Revelation. Its presence on earth was transferred to Jesus and the church. John 2.29-21 makes clear that Jesus had come to replace the Temple, and the result is that the church became the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3.16; 6.19; 2 Corinthians 6.16-18; Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.4-6). In the same way the true Jerusalem is also now in Heaven (Galatians 4.25-26; Hebrews 12.22). There are verses which superficially can be made to look as though a Temple will be built on earth but on examination they are clearly talking about the church (e.g. Revelation 11.1-13 which is talking about the church in the Sodomic Jerusalem). The Temple in Ezekiel 40 onwards was a heavenly Temple which proved that God had returned to His people, and was available to His returned people through the altar (which was the only part that they were told to build) and its final fulfilment is again in the church (chapter 47.1ff) and in Heaven. No doubt others will see it differently. It is one of the secondary matters on which thee is much controversy (hopefully friendly). |
||||||
65 | third temple built before Jesus returns? | John 2:19 | rabban | 191636 | ||
Hi Cheri, While full details of the Passover are not included mention is made of the feast of the Passover (Ezekiel 45.21). They are to 'have the Passover'. It is the only Feast he actually mentions by name. He would not need to spell out the details. As you are aware Ezekiel gives little detail of the feasts. There was no need. Israel were fully familiar with them. I presume you are suggesting that the Passover sacrifice and the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement being omitted are connected with Christ having died as our Passover and Atonement? But if that were so we would expect no mention of a sin offering either. But the sin offering is prominent, as is the need to make atonement (43.21, 26; 44.29; 45.17, 19, 22, 23, 25). Thus we may see this latter as confirming the opposite to your suggestion, that it does not have in view the death of Christ except as something yet to come :-)))). But I do see as very significant that there is no suggestion anywhere that the Temple should be built. It did not need to be built. It came down on a mountain specifically outside Jerusalem as his full explanations make clear. God was again present among His people, not in Jerusalem, but in the land of Israel. Only the altar was required to be built. Before the new Temple was built this would be extremely important to the returning exiles. They could build an altar. They had no wherewithal to build a Temple. In Him. |
||||||
66 | is jesus god | John 10:30 | rabban | 191890 | ||
To answer this question we need to look at the Scriptures, and we must be careful to consider each verse in context, and in the light of other Scriptures. Especially we need to look at the New Testament in the light of the Old, for Jesus and the Apostles all looked on the Old Testament as the Word of God. It is this consideration of Scriptures that will enable it to dawn on us Who He is. For the belief must capture our hearts if it is to be meaningful. 1). We will first of all consider the teaching of Paul. In Philippians 2 we have a clear statement of the fact that Jesus is called by the Name of the God of the Old Testament. That Jesus is LORD (Kurios). To appreciate this we need some background information. When God revealed Himself to Moses He revealed Himself under the name 'the I am' (Exodus 3.14). (The Hebrew is Eyeh). Then in Exodus 6 He relates this to His covenant name Yahweh (which means the 'He is', third person singular where Eyeh is first person singular). We do not know how this name was pronounced because it was so sacred that there came a time when to pronounce it meant instant death. All we know are the four consonants that make up the name, YHWH. This was the sacred name, the Name above every name. When a Jew or an Israelite read the Scriptures and came to the divine name he would substitute for it adonai ('Lord') or elohim ('God'). Thus God in the Old Testament was known as the 'I am' and as YHWH, but spoken of as Adonai ('LORD'). Thus the name YHWH was translated into Greek in the Septuagint in 2nd Century BC as Kurios ('Lord'). So when Paul speaks in Philippians 2 of Jesus as having 'been in the form of God' (in essence sharing Godhood), and emptying Himself to take 'the form of a servant' (in essence sharing servitude), being 'made in the likeness of man', and then being exalted to receive 'the Name which is above every name', we know that this latter was the name of YHWH (Kurios - LORD). That is the only Name which is above every name. Thus Jesus is declared to be thw YHWH of the Old Testament, truly God. Furthermore He Himself said that He had to return to ‘the glory which I had with You before the world came into being' (John 17.5).These are clear statements that being essentially God, Jesus became man, and having suffered death on the cross for man, was raised to again be essentially revealed as God, having the Name above every name, YHWH. Because of this every tongue will confess that Jesus is Kurios (the Greek equivalent of YHWH)as in Isaiah 45.23. In the light of the background, familiar to Paul and his readers, there could be no clearer statement that Jesus and the 'I Am' of the Old Testament are One. Furthermore in Titus 2.13 he speaks of 'the appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ'. Jesus is both God and Saviour. Compare also 2 Peter 1.1 which says the same. The same Greek construction says that He is LORD and Saviour in verse 11. That is why in John 8.58 Jesus could say, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' Here He compares His continually existent being with that of Abraham. He was the continually existing One before Abraham came into being. And even before Abraham, became a temporally existing one, Jesus was the eternally existing One. In 2 Corinthians 4.4 Paul can speak of 'Christ, who is the image of God', and thus as the One Who fully reveals what God is like. And he adds 'we preach Christ Jesus as LORD' (Kurios). Again the reference is clear to anyone familiar with the Hebrew background. This reference to Jesus as 'the image of God' (the One Who reveals what God is like) is again made in Colossians 1.15-17 where He is described as 'the image of the invisible God', the adjective 'invisible' thus removing any suggestion that the image spoken of is physical. The only way that you can be the image of One Who is invisible is to fully reveal in His own self what the Invisible One essentially is. Here also He is referred to as 'The Firstborn' (prototokos). This word comes from Greek philosophy where it refers to the Logos ('the eternal reason') with the idea that the Logos is eternal and not created, and is the source of all things. We note especially that Jesus is the ‘Firstborn’ not the first created, thus being equated with the eternal 'Reason' which was seen as ever-existent, as eternal. It equates with the use by Him of Himself as ‘the Son’. We are also told that as 'the Firstborn' He created all things both visible and invisible, is before all things (thus eternally existent), and holds all things together. Thus He is revealed as the Creator of the Old Testament and the sustainer of the world. In other words He was of the same nature and essence of the Father. ‘In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form’ (Colossians 2.9). |
||||||
67 | is jesus god | John 10:30 | rabban | 191891 | ||
Hebrews 1.2-3 again emphasises His uniqueness. He is 'the outshining of the glory of God (the visible revelation of the gory of God - see John 1.14, 18), the stamped out image (the exact representation) of His substance' and is the One through Whom all things were made and Who upholds all things by His powerful command. Thus the One Who spoke and it was done in Genesis 1 is Jesus. He is the Creator. It is difficult to think of any way of putting it that could more clearly declare His full deity. Yet at the same time it is made clear that He is not the whole of the Godhead. That is why He is called 'the Son' as against ‘the Father’ in an otherwise inexpressible relationship. This term indicates that He is of the same nature and essence as the Father, but not the whole of the Godhead. It is of course using human terminology to get over divine truth. He is the ever-existent, eternal Son. There was not a time when He had a beginning. Human sons are born after their fathers and are of the same nature. Thus ‘the Son’ was of the same nature as ‘the Father’. But we must not press the analogy too far. Because He is of the same nature as the eternal Father He is the eternal Son. But there was no time when He was not. He was not 'born' later than the Father like a human son is born (except when He became man). Theologians speak of Him as being 'eternally begotten'. The Apostle John further stresses His Godhood. 'In the beginning the Word (Logos) was already in existence, and the Word (Logos) was face to face with God in personal communion (pros with the accusative), and what God was the Word (Logos) was' (John 1.1), and this Word (Logos) 'became flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1.14). It is sometimes argued by those with a limited knowledge of Greek that the lack of the definite article on theos ('God') in the third clause of 1.1 somehow suggests a lessening in His divinity (as though there could be levels of Godhood). However to have put in the definite article ('the') would have been incorrect, firstly because in Greek it would have meant John was saying that Jesus was all there was of the Godhead, i.e. that the terms 'Jesus' and 'the Godhead' were exact equivalents, and secondly because it ignores the fact that the very purpose of the lack of article is to show that theos is used adjectivally to mean 'of the essence of what God is'. As theos has already been used in the second clause, to use it in the third clause adjectivally quite clearly makes the use of theos indicate the same essence and thus it refers to the essential nature of God. 'He was 'face to face with' God in close personal communion, and was Himself of the same 'essence of Godhood'. Thus John depicts Jesus as the creative Word Who made all things (John 1.3), the Creator of Genesis 1, and as of the essence of the Godhead. |
||||||
68 | ... | John 16:28 | rabban | 191406 | ||
In John 16.27 Jesus speaks of them as believing that He had come from the Father. In John 16.28 He says that He had come from the Father. In 16.30 the disciples replied, 'By this we believe that you came from God.' Note that the change from Father to God is because the speakers are different, but all three refer to the same fact that Jesus came from the Father, that is, from God, and two refer to the disciples' belief in the fact. Clearly therefore God and the Father are the same. |
||||||
69 | ... | John 16:28 | rabban | 191471 | ||
I presume I am unidentified responder, although as far as I am aware my name is clearly shown (see heading). In John 16.27 Jesus speaks of the disciples as believing that He had come from the Father, and in John 16.28 He says that He had come from the Father. Then in 16.30 in reply to this the disciples declared, 'By this we believe that you came from God.' It is surely quite clear that the Father is being described by the disciples as God. The terms are indeed often interchangeable, although clearly having a different emphasis. I am not sure why you should equate the Father in the New Testament with Jesus. That application only occurs in Isaiah 9.6 where the idea is that He is Father to His people in the same way as David would have been seen as being. As has also been pointed out John 5.18 clearly parallels the Father with God. Where then is the difficulty? I am also not quite sure what you mean by the difference in spelling. Are not 'God' and 'Father' usually spelled differently? It does not appear to me that there is a difference in definition. Just an indication that the disciples were still hesitant about speaking of 'the Father' in the way that Jesus did. They possibly recognised even at this stage the huge difference between themselvess and Jesus. Your other two 'questions' do not appear to be questions at all, so I am not sure what their purpose is. Are you just playing games?. |
||||||
70 | ... | John 16:31 | rabban | 191408 | ||
Jesus made clear throughout the Gospels that He was fulfilling the Old Testament Scriptures. See e.g. Matthew 5.17; Matthew 11.4-5 compare Isaiah 35.5-6. Thus He would have been disappointed had they NOT believed that He was sent as an emissary of the God of the Old Testament, Who was the God of Judaism. And no, John 16.31 says simply 'arti pisteuete', that is, 'Do you now believe?' There is nothing in the Greek that suggests 'that'. And it would be inconsistent with the whole context. The very point is the contrast of their present confidence with their future failure. |
||||||
71 | ... | John 16:31 | rabban | 191472 | ||
May I gently suggest that there is no 'alternate rendering'. The Greek is in fact quite clear. It is 'do you then (or 'now' - arti can be either and it makes little difference) believe?'It is their faith that is in question, not what they have been saying. | ||||||
72 | Acts 10:39 "Tree or cross"? | Acts 10:39 | rabban | 192052 | ||
Nestles Greek text gives 'tree' and suggests no alternative in the apparatus. In view of the fact that the wording reflects Deuteronomy 21.22 in LXX 'tree' is the correct text. It reflects the fact that Jesus bore our curse (Galatians 3.13). 'Cross' is presumably a translator's rendering of tree. |
||||||
73 | Refer to Romans 11:28-29 | Romans | rabban | 191627 | ||
Sadly the Jews in 1st and 2nd century became very bitter against the Christian church. Paul as Saul represented the Jewish leaders as a persecutor of the hellenistic part of the church in Jerusalem. The whole people turned on the Christians in Acts 12. Paul was oonstantly dogged by Jewish enemies (Acts 13.50; 14.5, 19) and was in the end delivered to the Romans by them. Later on James the Lord's brother was martyred by the Jews in Jerusalem. After the destruction of Jerusalem the Rabbis began the restoration of Judaism which had been shaken to the core, and this too caused friction with Christians. When Christianity became a proscribed religion the Jews were the main informants against Christians giving them up to torture and death (compare Revelation 2.9; etc.). This continued on into the second century. Unfortunately the later church, which had become apathetic and was partly paganised by Constantine, turned against the Jews which resulted in the shameful anti-Semitism that followed. However there is hope for the Jews for it may well be that the Scriptures indicate that towards the end there will be a great turning to Jesus Christ among them (much depends on interpretation). There can be no restoration of the Jews without it. Best wishes |
||||||
74 | God the Father as Provider or Saviour? | Rom 8:32 | rabban | 192056 | ||
GOD AND CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND REDEEMER. The Old Testament points clearly to God as the Saviour and Redeemer. Job can declare, ‘I know that my Redeemer lives, and that he will stand at last upon the earth’ (Job 19.25), and the psalmist can speak of ‘the Lord’ as ‘my rock and my Redeemer’ (Psalm 19.14). Thus he can boldly declare, ‘they remembered that God was their rock, and the Most High God their Redeemer’ (Psalm 78.35), while in Psalm 106.21 we are told of a contrary occasion when, ‘they forgot God their Saviour’. Isaiah reminds God’s people that ‘your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel’ (Isaiah 41.14), and God Himself declares ‘I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour’ (Isaiah 43.3) or alternately, ‘your Redeemer, the Holy one of Israel’ (Isaiah 43.14 compare 47.4), so that He can add ‘beside Me there is no Saviour’ (Isaiah 43.11). Both words are combined in Isaiah 49.26, ‘I the Lord am your Saviour and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob’ (compare also 60.16). Jeremiah declares, ‘Oh hope of Israel, their Saviour in time of trouble’ (Jeremiah 14.8), while in 50.34 he adds, ‘their Redeemer is strong, the Lord of Hosts is His name’, while God declares through Hosea, ‘beside Me there is no Saviour’ (Hosea 13.4). God is therefore constant as Saviour and Redeemer. This passes over into the New Testament where Mary can declare, ‘my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour’ (Luke 1.47), and God is often declared to be our Saviour. Paul is ‘an apostle of Jesus Christ, by commandment of God our Saviour’ (1 Timothy 1.1) and he can speak of what is ‘good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour’ ( 1 Timothy 2.3). Indeed ‘the living God is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe’ (1 Timothy 4.10). Again Paul can say that the word is ‘committed to me (Paul) according to the commandment of God our Saviour’ (Titus 1.3). So that we are told to ‘adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things’ (Titus 2.10), for ‘when the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared --- He saved us’ (Titus 3.4-5). And again Jude addresses his paean of praise to ‘the only God, our Saviour’ (Jude 1.25). Thus in the New Testament also God is both God and Saviour. This all makes it very significant, then, that Jesus Christ is regularly called our Saviour, and even ‘our God and Saviour’. The angels tell us, ‘unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour who is Christ the Lord’ (Luke 2.11), and the woman of Samaria declares Him to be ‘Christ, the Saviour of the world’ (John 4.42). Indeed ‘Him has God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour’ (Acts 5.31). He has ‘brought unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus’ (Acts 13.23). So Christ is ‘the head of the church, and He is the Saviour of the body’ (Ephesians 5.23). Thus we ‘wait for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Philippians 3.20). For God’s purpose in Christ is revealed by ‘the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ’ (2 Timothy 1.10) and Paul can speak of ‘God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour’ (Titus 1.4). But he finalises the union when he says that we are looking for ‘the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2.13). It is to Him, says Paul, that we owe the blessing of ‘the renewing of the Holy Spirit which He poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour’ (Titus 3.5-6). And John agrees, for he says, ‘the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world’ (1 John 4.14). Peter can speak even more definitely of those who have ‘obtained like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1.1), and of those who have had ministered to them an abundant entrance into ‘the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (2 Peter 1.11) (note that the Greek construction in 1.1 (‘God and Saviour’) and 1.11 (‘Lord and Saviour’) is the same so that if ‘Lord’ refers to Jesus so must ‘God’). So Peter tells us to remember the commandment of ‘the Lord and Saviour’ (2 Peter 3.2) and that we are to ‘grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (2 Peter 3.18). To Peter Jesus is both ‘Lord and Saviour’ and ‘God and Saviour’. And in Acts 20.28 Paul can speak of ‘the church of God which He (God) purchased with His own blood’ in a context where the whole stress is on God. Thus the ‘God and Saviour’ of the Old Testament has become the ‘God and Saviour’ of the New Testament as revealed in Jesus Christ, Who is Himself ‘God and Saviour’. |
||||||
75 | God the Father as Provider or Saviour? | Rom 8:32 | rabban | 192080 | ||
... | ||||||
76 | THE APOCALYPSE CODE, Have U read it? | Rom 11:17 | rabban | 191337 | ||
Surely if we are grafted into Israel as you rightly say, and unbelieving Israel have been cut off then the church is the true and continuing Israel? Large numbers of Galilean Jews had become Christians through Jesus' ministry and would later have been confirmed as such by the Apostles. The ministry of the Apostles went on for twelve years in Jerusalem and was hugely successful. Thus a good percentage of the Jews had become Christian Jews. Paul declares the remainder as cut off from Israel. This resulted in the new Israel founded on the rock of Jesus' Messiahship. As Paul said not all of Israel were truly Israel (Romans 9.6). They had proved it by rejecting Christ. This is confirmed in Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.5, 9; Galatians 3.29; and of course Romans 11.17-18. In accordance with Exodus 12.48 Paul said that the Gentiles who became Christians were to be incorporated into Israel through the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2.11). It was precisely because the Judaisers saw the converted Gentiles as becoming Christian Jews and thus part of Israel that they demanded that they should be circumcised in the flesh and demanded the circumcision of Titus. Paul's reply was not that the church was not Israel, but that the converted Gentiles could be seen as already circumcised in the circumcision of Christ and therefore as true proselytes to Israel. The whole reason for the argument was precisely that both sides saw the church as being the true continuation of Israel (John 15.1-6) and that was why the question therefore arose as to whether circumcison was demanded in order to fit in with Exodus 12.48. Paul's reply was that although they were becoming a genuine part of the new Israel, which was replacing the old (Matthew 21.43) they did not need to be circumcised, because this was already accomplished in them through the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2.11). Thus all parties saw the church as being the true Israel, who in Christ had come out of Egypt (Matthew 2.15). |
||||||
77 | THE APOCALYPSE CODE, Have U read it? | Rom 11:17 | rabban | 191412 | ||
Having read the review by Norman Geisler I am afraid that my view is that he is equally as guilty of misrepresentation and glossing over other peoples's views as Hank Hanegraff. Norman Geisler is clearly unaware (I will assume that it was accidental) of the views of many amillennialists and totally misrepresents their position. I am an amillennialist and I would be ashamed to hold the beliefs and interpretations that according to Norman Geisler I am supposed to hold. Unlike him I believe that the Old Testament must be interpreted in the way in which the New Testament interprets it. Nor would I agree that a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 demands a millennium. No millennium ON EARTH is mentioned there. These are gross misrepresentations although I am sure they are due to his lack of knowledge of what other people hold. However to be fair to Norman Geisler he does make clear that he does not fall out with amillennialists over their views as he considers such matters secondary as indeed they are. So it does not seem to me as if there is a divide between the two. If we cannot amicably disagree over a series of doctrines that will affect none of us (hopefully) then there is something very wrong with Christianity. I do not intend to say any more on the topic on this forum, but as my previous posting made clear I believe that the church IS Israel (not just a spiritual Israel). I will not fall out with anyone about it. But I certainly do not believe that God has made any promises that do not apply to the church as Israel. Most of you have your own settled positions on the subject, and that is fine. Stick to them. But please let us not demonise Hank Hanegraff or any who hold amillennial or postmillennial views. If anyone does have quetions raised by what I have said and would like to discuss them please contact me on jonrobb1@lycos.com. I will be happy to discuss them amicably. It is foolish to fall out about a future that none of us can possibly know about. It is equally foolish to say that the people who do not believe our particular angle are not faithful to the word of God. They can (wrongly) say the same about us. That is all I intend to say on the matter. but I did feel it necessary to make this position clear. |
||||||
78 | is masterbation a sin | Rom 12:1 | rabban | 191660 | ||
I have read right through the past postings on this matter very carefully and note that one aspect of the question has never really been dealt with, one that I would feel is very important. Parable's analysis of the question is very useful, and it does raise the question as to how far we can speak when Scripture is silent. After all we must ask ourselves, why was Scripture silent on a question which must certainly have concerned many men? God must have known the torment that could arise in sexually potent men when their sexual feelings were aroused through no fault of their own, and they were unable to be satisfied, say when they were travelling or when they were awaiting battle. And He must have known how they found release. Why then if He disapproved is nothing said? Moses must often have been approached privately by men who wanted an answer to the same question. And the same must apply to the prophets. Why then do we get no guidance if it was considered wrong? We are not talking here about a young man or a boy experimenting with sexual matters, where it is unquestionably wrong.But of a genuine problem facing grown men. I think Parables's summary at the end especially important. "While the Bible does not expressly address masturbation, it honors sexual purity and speaks to the content of our hearts and the life we give to our thoughts. Accordingly, masturbation should not be dismissed as trivial or irrelevant, but rather understood as a powerful experience that each person must consider in light of scripture, prayer, counsel and conscience." I think that is true. But let me suggest three scenarios. 1). Here is a man who dearly loves his wife. He married because he knew that the sciptures said. 'It is better to marry than to burn.' But sadly his wife is in hospital long term. Perhaps she is mentally ill and he knows that she might never come out. Or perhaps she is slowly dying of some lingering disease. And because he is highly sexed he is burning, and even in pain. There is nothing that he can do about it. It is his nature, the nature of which Paul spoke. And that burning as he works in an office with a woman at work is becoming uncontrollable (and only highly sexed males can even understand this). Yet he knows that if he finds relief in bed while thinking of his poor, beloved wife, those burnings will be controlled. He fears that if they are not he will soon do something that he knows to be wrong. And he knows that he will never forgive himself because he is loyal to his wife and to his God. What should he do? Here is another man. His wife has become very 'holy'. She refuses any more to have sex (I know of such a case). Again he married because he knew that he could not remain pure without doing so. Now he does not know what to do. His feelings are becoming more and more aroused and there is no way of being satisfied. He knows that his one hope of remaining true is to make love to his wife by proxy alone in bed. What should he do? Here is a Roman Catholic priest. He has made a vow of celibacy. He does not want to break his vow. Yet scantily clad women come to him for advice, and he feels his sexuality getting out of control. It has become not just a desire but a literal pain. He is afraid that if he finds no release he will commit some great sin. But he wants to be faithful to his vow (however ill-conceived). What should he do? I want to suggest that when we can answer these questions satisfactorily (women and lowly sexed men excluded) we have found the Scriptural answer to the question. |
||||||
79 | is masterbation a sin | Rom 12:1 | rabban | 191663 | ||
Thank you Azure, You will now see why I 'excluded' women and lowly sexed men. Neither can have the slightest knowledge of the extremly powerful urges that highly sexed men have. They can have a driving force which is virtually irresistible, and they go on and on and on relentlessly often destroying a man's usefulness, and very often resulting in actual pain and extreme discomfort. Now if we were talking about something specifically forbidden it would be one thing. My point is precisely that a wise God did not do so because He recognised the situation and need of special cases. Let me add another one. Here is a person with leukemia. As a result he has been infected with AIDS. As a result he cannot make love to his beloved wife. Can you perhaps tell me what the difference is between foreplay (which presumably you would not condemn) and masturbation with his wife in mind? There is little difference between the two. When we consider the emotions that foreplay arouse (and that is also never approved in Scripture, Song of Solomon notwithstanding) perhaps we should forbid that as well? Your article fits adequately the case of the young man considering the situation when he is unmarried. It overlooks totally the problems that I have described, and in fact hardly has them in mind, if at all. I would point out that the writer makes certain assumptions. How does he know what God designed sex for? Has he a direct line to God? And what I have described is in fact a bonding experience between man and wife. Is that not one reason why God 'designed' sex? That is why God gave us the Scriptures. It was that we may follow his will not men's ideas. especially in difficult questions like this. I have no intention of prolonging the subject. But until each one can give a satisfactory answer in their own hearts (not on the forum) to my questions I rest my case. In Him |
||||||
80 | FYI - About Duplicate Posts | Rom 12:10 | rabban | 192019 | ||
Thanks Cheri :-))) | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |