Happy Chanukah!

[afleitch]

I take issue with thye use of the term 'to believe' - The Greek is pisteuo; to trust, to be persuaded of (this I believe is the definition used by the Catholic Church)

Trust is different from belief.

Trust in Jesus is, to be fair a greater attribute than just belief.

[afleitch]

but who the heck is C.S. Lewis?

All about C.S. Lewis.

Just as I suspected: C.S. Lewis ain't God, even if some people like to quote him instead of scripture.

There are many learned Christians jmfcst, over the past 2000 years who have deliberated and thought and spoken and argued a whole manner of things. These people were motivated by the Holy Spirit too, you can't just dismiss them and the opinions they formed through their study of the Bible.

Why don't you read about them and see what they were on about? You never know, they might enlighten you.

[afleitch]

Jesus and all the Apostles were able to answer that fundamental question point blank and without hesitation. 

Indeed they were, but they knew Jesus in his life and after his ressurection. They were part of his immediate close community. And even as the apostles travelled for decades after Jesus had left this earth they could only reach a few pockets of the Roman Empire. One thousand years later, Christianity hadn't even penetrated across the whole of Europe.

How on earth could people be condemned because missionaries had not yet got to them? They may not have known Jesus the Son, but they may have known God the Father, because God is self evident in his creation. If you look you can find him, though you don't have any book or any knowledge of his complexity to guide you. You said God revealed himself to you - would he have not done so had you not heard of him or heard of the Bible or had not lived where you live or been born where you were born? If so, why can he not therefore reveal himself, in whatever manner to those who have not heard him?

[afleitch]

You said God revealed himself to you - would he have not done so had you not heard of him or heard of the Bible or had not lived where you live or been born where you were born? If so, why can he not therefore reveal himself, in whatever manner to those who have not heard him?

Again, why did Apostles lead missionaries?

Indeed I would not have come to believe without the bible.  But that is why the bible is preached:

Rom 10:12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

I was asking you, did God only reveal himself to you because you knew there was a book called the Bible where answers could be found? What therefore made you different from someone who was not aware of this book for example? Because, unless I am mistaken and you may have to explain things here, your experience of salvation sounds as if it contrary to how you interpret salvation biblically.

Who missioned you? Because from what you've said it appears that God can only be revealed through the work of human mission ('why did the Apostles lead missionaries'), as you consider that the apostles were instructed to do and not through supernatural revelation through the Holy Spirit.

When God was revealed to you, you had the opportunity to go to any bookstore or church and pick up the Bible. If he revealed himself to some man in Kansas 800 years ago, he would not have that liberty. Therefore that man could not be damned because of the circumstances of this birth even though God through the Holy Spirit had revealed himself,

It can be held that no one may find salvation other than through Christ, but where is Christ to be found other than the Bible or from the lips of missionaries? Unless you disagree with the concept of 'homoousion' or the belief that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son and through the Spirit both Father and son can be revealed.

[afleitch]

This isn't a 'political correctness' issue because it has been an issue of theological discussions for many many centuries.

Romans 8: But you are not in the flesh, but the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin: but the spirit liveth, because of justification. And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Again this affirms the Trinity, that the spirit of Christ is also the 'sprirt of him that raised up Jesus' (god). Therefore the Spirit is the agent of God and Christ.

Romans 8:14 -  For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God

John 16:  But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you. He shall glorify me: because he shall receive of mine and shall show it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine. Therefore I said that he shall receive of me and show it to you.

Is this truth not the Word? When this truth glorifies the Lord? If the Holy Spirit moves the heart of those who are exluded through circumstance from hearing the written word, how can that person be condemened if the Spirit carries the word of God?





Agin this shows that the Spirit is an agent of Christ.

[afleitch]

The verses you quoted simply state those who have the Holy Spirit are saved, but what you are leaving out is HOW they received the Holy Spirit to begin with. for you can NOT receive the Holy Spirit without FIRST having FAITH in Jesus Christ:

I would contend that.

The Spirit came to Mary, to bear Jesus, it came to John, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth when he was conceived  (Luke 1:15) filling him with the Holy Spirit some six months before an angel of the Lord spoke to Mary. It also came to Elizabeth (Luke 1:41) when Mary simply greeted her. After Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit she then knew and believed Jesus as Christ; 'Blessed art thou...''

So the Spirit came to John before the conception of Christ, before he was made flesh. It came to Elizabeth and later to Zacharias (Luke 1:67)

In Luke 2:25-26, we can see that the Spirit had came to Simeon, we can assume before Christ's birth as it had promised him at some point, (could have been days, could have been years before) that he would not die until he had seen the 'Lord's Christ'

All these people were of great faith, but a faith in God and that God would send his son as long prohpesised. Not a faith in Jesus as Christ. Not an understanding that Mary carried the Christ. Only when filled with the Holy Spirit did Elizabeth understand whom Mary was carrying. The Spirit was an aid to her understanding.

[afleitch]

I don’t know about anyone else here, but if I have complained for years on end, which you have done, about the cruelty of a character I admitted was fictional, I think I would don a straight jacket and start looking for the nearest hospital.

But, despite all your grumblings against God, God, through his love, is still if offering you a chance not only to save yourself, but also your own family and many others as well.

Yet you fail to recognise that you were appealing to Dibble to support you above all others when you have had debates in the past. Even very recently when you and I had a debate. I found it odd that you were appealing to someone who is a self declared non-Christian (no matter how I argued or how you did) because no one on your 'own team' were willing to.

If anything, as Dibble has admitted in the past, you pretty much helped seal the deal on where he stood.

Dibble may or may not believe in God, but it doesn't mean he cannot grapple with the theological context, something which you have an inability to do. Theology, or more simply 'thoughts other than ones own' have never been your strong point.

[afleitch]

So, don’t blame me that your theory on Mat ch 19 didn’t have a lot of participation, for no one was buying it.

Really? Considering it only involved me you and Dibble, with me buying it, you not and Dibble, fairly, sitting on the fence...

Dibble,

I can’t believe you continue to waver between the two opinions.

Why shouldn't I "waver"? If neither of you can conclusively prove your opinion as fact in my eyes should I just choose blindly? Only an idiot would do that.

As I stated, I'm not even going to bother anymore - it's quite clear you either are incapable of understanding what is being argued to you in plain English or you just don't want to understand because it might threaten your fragile little ego to even consider you might be wrong. Given your attitude I'm going to suppose the latter.

Who else wasn't buying it? Or if silence equals dissaproval I could conserve both time and energy by simply ignoring you from now on!

Infact if it wasn't for me or Dibble no one here give you the time of day

My “theology” has everything to do with using scripture to take control of my own thoughts that swarm around in my imagination - an imagination that desires nothing but pretty pictures and sugar coated stories.  But, I accept what is written in scripture and use it to tame my imagination.

But your “theology” is nothing more than your imagination run amok.

This has nothing to do with my theology, Lord no.

It's entirely about your inability to fathom any thought, Biblical or non Biblical that does not come from your own head (making you an egoist by definition). That is particularly self evident by some of your Forum Community style posts.

[afleitch]

I'm not one to push aside the sharing of a revelation from God (though I will add that many other people would contend that any such interventions are bull and you really should get tested psychologically)

But you do realise that in trumping your own experience, you seem to be highly dismissive of anyone elses spiritual experience to the extent that you have been borderline abusive to Jsjourner for example

And you seem to believe that I am both a liar and a fraud (hey, I've had worse!)

And that you seem to try and go out of your way to make enemies out of friends.

Yet here we all still are. Perhaps there is a reason for that...

[afleitch]

I've heard of too many different ways people came to know the Loard to ever be dismissive of others' spiritual experiences.  Even in the limited subset of examples found in the book of Acts, there is extremely wide diversity of events surrounding the salvation of people.

Yet I recall you dismissed mine.

 But I have accepted him as a brother in Christ.  The same goes of Supersoultry(sp?) and I have recently told him that I accept him.

You said the same of me, one of the first times we had discussions over Matthew some 18(?) months ago. Yet it is clear that you reject that now.

yeah, you wish to deceive others into accepting your lifestyle, even to the point of sending me private messages saying that you've haven't given up trying to get me to accept your distortions, as if there is any chance I could be deceived into believing something so contrary to the uniform biblical pattern of sex within the context of heterosexual marriage.

You might as well attempt to convince me of adultery or bestiality.

I e-mailed you saying I had not given up on you as Christian brother, even though through calling me a deceiver and a liar that you had given up on me.

Secondly, I'm not asking you to accept bestiality am I? The argument I gave is consistent with the positioning I have taken on this forum for some years now. Only now you consider me to be a 'deceiver' even though someone like Dibble, who you attempted to court, said he could see how both interpretations could be valid based on the path taken in the reasoning behind them.

And what I find most amusing about this jmfcst, is how you still haven't grasped what I was saying, even if you choose to agree or disagree, was simply that Matthew excluded gay men from marriage. That's it. As I said at the time: not what we can do, but what we can't.

Unless you believe that gay men should marry women and try and screw out a couple of kids of course.

It's also not suprising that you choose to vary your level of abuse depending on the persons sexuality, an action which stems from your bigoted nature and not through following Christ.

[afleitch]

So your whole charge against my interpretation rests upon the fact that you believe Jesus is only mentioning Groups A and B in juxtaposition. Where, pray in the language employed is this juxtaposition to be found given that he mentions all three groups in one breath?

I had a look online for the interpretation of others on this matter. I was surpised to find that the study guide (and I don't like study guides) for the People's New Testament says that all 3 categories are classified as 'the classes are named who need not marry.' The JFB Bible Commentary also categorised all 3 as 'either incapable of or indisposed to marriage.'

So two commentators affirm my interpretation that links all 3 groups together as excempt from the institution of marriage. Are they liars and deceivers also?

EDIT:

I may also add

The Matthew Henry Commentary (which I particularly dislike because of the use of the term papist)

Christ speaks here of a twofold unaptness to marriage. (1.) That which is a calamity by the providence of God; such as those labour under who are born eunuchs, or made so by men, who, being incapable of answering one great end of marriage, ought not to marry. But to that calamity let them oppose the opportunity that there is in the single state of serving God better, to balance it. (2.) That which is a virtue by the grace of God; such is theirs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake

The Fourfold Gospel Commentary

The disciples, startled by the Lord's declaration as to the indissolubility of marriage, declared that marriage was inexpedient. Jesus accepts their saying, because applicable to but three cases

John Wesley

But he said to them - This is not universally true; it does not hold, with regard to all men, but with regard to those only to whom is given this excellent gift of God. Now this is given to three sorts of persons to some by natural constitution, without their choice: to others by violence, against their choice; and to others by grace with their choice: who steadily withstand their natural inclinations, that they may wait upon God without distraction.

[afleitch]

Of course Groups A and B are also “exempted” from marriage, just as a man with no legs is exempted from running a marathon. 

But their exemption didn’t come through Jesus instructing them, nor did it come through any action of their own, rather it comes from the fact that can’t have sex because they are physically unable to get an erection.

I'll put your slight gear change to one side here, now that you've linked the three groups again.

Eunuch's aren't always physically unable to get an erection or have sex. That's been pointed out numerous times. They simply cannot procreate because they have had their balls lopped off. They can still produce semen. They still had 'the urge.' However they would have an exponentially higher chance of gaining an erection with the female form than I would.

And it's all about procreative sex , not just the act itself isn't it? Within marriage. Or are you now trying to delink them A eunuch could give a woman the time of her life in bed but couldn't provide children. A man naturally unable to get his 'lad up' might want a woman and a child desperately but could not physically do it (at least not until recent times with IVF and IS) And as for a gay man, they are unable to generate emotional or physical responses to women.

If you want a husband and kids, why the hell would you marry someone who was gay?

Perhaps  they are, like the other bunch of eunuchs 'naturally' excempt even if it was just a juxtaposition?

But...dah theres science, genetics, pre-natal research and all that gobbeldygook simply proving the Bible right again. We can't have that can we

[afleitch]

Christ speaks here of a twofold unaptness to marriage. (1.) That which is a calamity by the providence of God

calamity:
1 : a state of deep distress or misery caused by major misfortune or loss
2 : a disastrous event marked by great loss and lasting distress and suffering

so now you've gone as far as calling yourself a "calamity". 

Although, such a description may describe the soundness of your argument, it hardly advances your thesis.

Oh the Matthew Henry one! The one I said I 'particularly disliked.' Or were you selectively reading again?

Remember

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except in all those examples I gave. Which you dismissed. And even if we accept your position that Groups AndB are physical eunuchs, you have still failed to explain why gay people are not physical eunuchs for the purpose of a procreative marriage considering two of the other eunuch's identified would still, pardon me 'want it bad' with a lady.