Happy Chanukah!

[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...

[anvi]

Oh well, I realize that I am engaging in a fruitless discussion here.  But, just for the record

>You can NOT use “do not judge” to nullify acknowledgment that “the wages of sin are death”…NOR >can you use “do not judge” to nullify acknowledgment of that Christ is the only path to salvation…>NOR can you use “do not judge” to nullify any other knowledge the scripture provides.
>
J>esus did NOT say, “Do not judge…therefore, forget everything I’ve taught you.”
>
>What Jesus actually said was, Mat 7:1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way >you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
>
>Obviously, when I recited the passages which teach the necessity of faith in Christ, I also applied >those very same verses to myself.  So, where is the hypocrisy in that?

---

Well, if we want to be so exact about it, the Greek for Matthew 7:1 is (I hope the font comes through correctly): mh krinete ina mh kriqhte, so the formulation is more conjunctive (and) than disjunctive (or, in your translation), so the verse should be rendered, "don't judge and you won't be judged" or "don't judge (in order) that you are not judged.  Now, you are right about 7:2 telling the believer that the standards that they used on others will be used upon them.  But then, 7:3-4 says " ti de blepeiV to karfoV to en tw ofqalmw tou adelfou sou thn de en tw sw ofqalmw dokon ou katanoeiV.  h pwV ereiV tw adelfw sou afeV ekbalw to karfoV apo tou ofqalmou sou kai idou h dokoV en tw ofqalmw sou.  upokrita ekbale prwton thn dokon ek tou ofqalmou sou kai tote diableyeiV ekbalein to karfoV ek tou ofqalmou tou adelfou sou."  (Why do you see the splinter that is in your brother's eye and not notice the beam in your own?  Or how will you tell your brother: "let me take the splinter out of your eye," and look, the beam is in your own eye.  Hypocrite!  First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the beam from your brother's eye.)  The passage, in its entirety, seems to be warning the believer they they should refrain from judging others if the enormity of their own sins prevents them from understanding others well enough to make an appropriate judgement.  This is why, it seems to me, that God is the only being capable of judging, precisely because God is not stained by sin.  When it comes to judgment, the passage in Matthew seems to be saying that the rest of us sinners, and we are all surely sinners whether we are believers or not, are in a pretty precarious position with regard to judging others.

I never suggested that Jesus told his followers that a consequence of his admonishment of them not to judge others constituted a recommendation that they "forget everything" they were taught, as you imply.  Jesus clearly wanted his followers to stringently keep to what he understood to be God's will.  But refraining from unjust judgments looks to me like it was an important part of God's will for people.  I also did not accuse you of hypocrisy.  My position is that you seem to be using the passage in Matthew as license to judge others given the fact that you are a believer, whereas the passage in Matthew seems to be admonishing believers to make their own atonements before they denounce others.   And that brings me to my next point:      

>>I always get the feeling that American Christians who take their commission to convert others >>seriously are at pains to live in a pluralistic society, many seem fundamentally unhappy that there >>are people living in the same society who do not share their religious beliefs.  Why do I get this >>feeling?
>Because you’re “judging” all evangelicals by the actions of a few tyrants.
 
No, it's not a judgment; it's an observation.  I did not praise or condemn some Christians for feeling unhappy about living in a pluralistic society, but it seems obvious that many are.  I did not say "all Evangelicals," I said "American Christians who take their commission to convert others seriously," so this obviously does not include all evangelicals and certainly not all Christians.  If they are unhappy with pluralistic society, than that's the way they feel.  And "a few tyrants?"  It wasn't a few, and here is where reading a few books about history could come in handy.

Anyway, it seems to me that what gets to people on this forum is not your wish to engage issues based on your faith or your reliance on the Bible.  I think what gets their ire is that, in your hands, the Gospel is no longer "good news," it's just a threat that "the wages of sin is death" where sin constitutes not being a Christian, and specifically not being a Christian of your particular interpetive persuasion.  The Christian message didn't just present itself to the world, it was brought to the world by people, and they each had and have their own way of presenting the message.  So, despite your protestation that you want religious discussions to be about the Bible and not about you, the fact of the matter is that the presentation is about you.  It's in the way you place the Gospel before your listeners.  The God you talk about doesn't seem to love the world very much, He seems to be eager to finger-point, condemn and send unbelivers into hellfire as soon as possible instead of send His only Son to instruct, heal, comfort, forgive, certainly correct them when necessary, and ultimately die for everyone as an act of reconciling human beings to God.  And, again this is an observation, the reactions to you on this forum seem to indicate that this style of presentation isn't very effective.  Now, maybe you just enjoy provoking people's ire and citing scripture in the condemnation of unbelievers, and if this is the case, then by all means keep doing it.  I'm a pluralist, so if that is in your judgment the most virtuous way of going about these discussions, then do so

Anyway, like I said, I know this is a fruitless attempt at a dialogue.  But, that's alright.   

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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

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.

---

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!)

I have not abuse JSJ, at least not since finding out he wasn't gay.   We've had our disagreements, but I don't see him purposely distorting scripture.  I think he simply needs to think some things through, for example the necessity of faith in Christ.  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.

---

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

Yes, I do purposely ruffle feathers, from time to time.  Mostly it’s done in jest to lighten-up the debate, like a friendly and playful elbow while playing hoops.  But only in very rare instances is it deliberately flagrant.

---

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

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.

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This is why, it seems to me, that God is the only being capable of judging, precisely because God is not stained by sin.  When it comes to judgment, the passage in Matthew seems to be saying that the rest of us sinners, and we are all surely sinners whether we are believers or not, are in a pretty precarious position with regard to judging others.

I totally agree with what you’re saying.  It’s the application we disagree on.  (see below)

---

I never suggested that Jesus told his followers that a consequence of his admonishment of them not to judge others constituted a recommendation that they "forget everything" they were taught, as you imply.  Jesus clearly wanted his followers to stringently keep to what he understood to be God's will.  But refraining from unjust judgments looks to me like it was an important part of God's will for people.  I also did not accuse you of hypocrisy.  My position is that you seem to be using the passage in Matthew as license to judge others given the fact that you are a believer, whereas the passage in Matthew seems to be admonishing believers to make their own atonements before they denounce others

But hasn’t that been, EXACTLY, my point?!  It’s not a condemnation I am rendering, rather it is one that has ALREADY been passed down by God:

John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

So, I am NOT judging them, rather I am trying to help them find the only way to get out from under judgment.

---

Anyway, it seems to me that what gets to people on this forum is not your wish to engage issues based on your faith or your reliance on the Bible.  I think what gets their ire is that, in your hands, the Gospel is no longer "good news," it's just a threat that "the wages of sin is death"

I don’t see how being presented an opportunity to come out from under condemnation is not “Good News”.  What people seem to be having a problem with is the idea that they’re ALREADY under condemnation.  So, I can’t threaten them with a condemnation that is ALREADY been handed down.

---

, and specifically not being a Christian of your particular interpetive persuasion.  

As one who has attended an inter-denominational church for the last 16 years, and as one who first met Christ apart from any church and apart from any particular interpretive persuasion, your statement doesn’t really make sense, for I had  ZERO doctrine when I was saved, I knew nothing within the bible.  So how is it possible that I now would place some litmus test in between people and Christ?

The whole reason I go to an inter-denominational church is that I hate the idea of cluttering the path to Christ with a bunch of made up rules.

So, somewhere there is a disconnect between the reality of my life and your perception of it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

I understood:  You said that Matthew 19:1-12 “excluded gay men from marriage.”

And I shall demonstrate how thoroughly I understood your position, along the motive for your interpretation:
Mat 19:9-12 [Jesus said, ]“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
 
There are 3 mutually exclusive groups of “eunuchs” referred to in verse 12:
Group A) some are eunuchs because they were born that way
Group B) others were made that way by men
Group C) and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven


First, you claim that Jesus is giving instructions about marriage to GroupsA&B, when he is ONLY giving instructions about marriage to Group C.  Christ only references GroupsA&B for juxtaposition to Group C.

Second, you claim that Groups A&B are sexually active or at least are capable of having sex, when it is clear he is discussing the gift of celibacy given to Group C, thus showing the contrast (juxtaposition) between the two groups of PHYSICAL EUNUCHS (Groups A&B) who became eunuch NOT by choice (they were born that way or made that way by men), versus SPIRITUAL EUNUCHS (Group C) who have been given the gift of celibacy and can therefore choose to lead sexually inactive lives and therefore avoid the pitfalls of marriage.

Third, you claim that homosexuals are included in the definition of Group A (those that were born that way), when in fact, as I said above, Jesus was simply using the most common definition of the term “eunuch” to refer to men who are PHYSICALLY incapable of having sex, in order to contrast them with those who have used their gift of celibacy to control their sexual desire and thus opt-out of sex, and, as a result, opt-out of marriage..

---

Now to the motive part: 

In an obvious blatant attempt to circumvent the bible’s placement of sex within the context of a heterosexual marriage, you’re distorting the usage of “eunuch” in Mat 19:12 in an attempt to have the bible give you (a homosexual) license to exclude yourself from the contextual connection between sex and marriage.  And by gaining exemption form marriage through Mat 19:12, you justify not repenting of your homosexual desires.

It is so obviously flawed because:
1) Jesus wasn’t even giving instructions to the particular bucket of eunuchs (Group A) you’re placing yourself in, rather he was instructing Group C.
2) Group A eunuchs, along with Group B, are not even capable of having sex.
3) The context is celibacy, therefore none of the buckets of eunuchs (A, B, or C) are sexually active.
4) It was Jesus Christ himself who repeated bound sex to marriage throughout Matthew ch 19, yet the end purpose of your deception is the removal of sex from that context.
5) Your interpretation of Mat ch 19 doesn’t even come close to meshing with the rest of scripture.

It’s the biggest and most transparent hack of a passage I’ve ever seen.

And you continue to demonstrate how much of a deceiver you are, for you have known all along that I have understood what you were implying and your intention for doing so.  Yet, you have used Dibble’s claim that I misunderstood for cover to allow yourself to continue to claim ignorance of the fact that I understand COMPLETELY, and you do so in an attempt to make me look like the one who understands nothing.

---

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

And you also understand, through many previous conversations with me, though your statement pretends that you don’t, that I believe God can free anyone from their sin, whether it be alcoholism, drug addiction, adultery, bestiality, or homosexuality.

What is expected of you is the same that is expected of everybody else:  repent and by faith try to find Christ so that you can be turned into a new creation (Gal 6:5). 

So, stop the act, for although you may fool yourself and others, you’re not fooling me.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Anvikshiki,

Do you find the following statements to be in violation of Jesus’s command not to judge?

Steven:  Acts7:51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!”

Jude: Jude 1:4 “For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.”

Paul:  Gal 5:21 “…drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Peter:  2Pet 2:3 “In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”

John: 1 John 2:4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So your whole charge against my interpretation rests upon the fact that you believe Jesus is only mentioning Groups A and B in juxtaposition.

No, I mentioned 5 charges :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

---

Where, pray in the language employed is this juxtaposition to be found given that he mentions all three groups in one breath?

Mat 19:9-12 [Jesus said, ]“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Jesus’ entire instruction (which I placed in green) carry with it an ACT (an action) OF ACCEPTANCE BASED ON A RELIGIOUS PURPOSE:.

Group A does NOT perform any action based on a religious purpose: “some are eunuchs because they were born that way”…In fact, Group A doesn’t perform any action at all.

Group B does NOT perform any action based on a religious purpose: “others were made that way by men” …In fact, Group B doesn’t perform any action at all.

BUT, Group C DOES perform an action: “and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven”…and it’s an action based on a religious purpose.

Groups A and B did NOT “renounce” marriage, only Group C did.

So, the whole instruction: "Not everyone can accept [that it is better not to marry], but only those to whom it has been given…The one who can accept this should accept it” is directed at Group C who “renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”

Group A and B are only throw in for juxtaposition.: “12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”

---

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?

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.

Groups A and B have no choice based on their physical limitation, hence no mention of any action or choice on their part or anything about them having to do with the religious choice Jesus is referring to.

But, Group C DOES HAVE A CHOICE – “; and others have RENOUNCED marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”  And they make their choice based on devotion to God.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

I don't know what motivates men did this to other men…but I have a SLIGHT hunch they did it for the purpose of being able to trust the eunuchs with their women.

So, if it wasn’t effective in keeping them from having sex in the vast majority of cases, then it seems to me they wouldn’t have been trusted with the women.

Beside, all of that, Jesus is making broad statements of fact here that is applicable to the common case of eunuchs, so he is NOT passing up the vast majority of eunuchs  in order to direct his statement towards a superman who can obtain an erection even with his balls cut off.

The fact that you have to narrowly parse down to a very slight percentage which eunuchs he is referring to demonstrates the weakness of your interpretation.

So, since common sense state that Jesus is referring to a common eunuch, with the problems that commonly go along with being a eunuch, you can NOT say that Jesus is proclaiming to him an exemption to marriage.  That simply would NOT make sense.

It would be tantamount to Jesus giving someone born with no legs (or who had they legs chopped off by someone else) an exemption from running a marathon.  What a mockery that would be, for the exemption would mean nothing and wasn’t’ needed in the first place.

---

As to your attempting to link only those capable of procreative sex to marriage and exempt everyone else from marriage who are capable of having sex but just not procreative sex….

That argument falls apart because fertility tests are a modern invention, so there were PLENTLY of sterile people getting married over the ages who had no idea they were sterile.

And, if you bring your statement into modern times, then any heterosexual who is sterile could be exempted from marriage and go off and have non-procreative sex outside of marriage for as long as they want.

Obviously, the bible gives no exemption for sex outside of marriage for anyone: sterile or fertile, straight or gay.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

1)  the entire context of the chapter ties sex to marriage.  It does NOT narrowly define sex only to those capable of having babies.  If it did, it would exclude many married sterile couples and thus exclude them from what Jesus taught in his answer to the divorce question, an answer in which JESUS was the one who repeatedly brought up sex….and since he is NOT limiting his statements to only pro-creative sex (in fact, he never mentions pro-creation), but is referring to sex in general, YOUR ATTEMPTED EXEMPTION BASED ON NOT HAVING PRO-CREATIVE SEX FALLS FLAT.

2) because the verses 11-12 are about the CELEBACY of Group C and the CHOICE Group C makes to follow the path of CELEBACY in order to concentrate on God…AND SINCE THEIR POWER TO REMAIN SEXUAL INACTIVTY FREES THEM FROM THE SEX-MARRIAGE LINKAGE THEY THEREFORE CAN ***CHOOSE*** TO RENOUNCE MARRIAGE.

3) And since, NEITHER Group A or B is making a choice, but Group C is, the juxtaposition of the groups is PROVEN:   the non-choice groups vs. the group that makes a choice.

4) The 3 Groups of Eunuchs have to have something in COMMON, else they wouldn’t be grouped together.  And since we have already shown that their choices are NOT their commonality (Group A&B didn’t choose), then the commonality MUST BE SEX.   So what is the community between EUNUCHS and those that are CELEBATE?…SEXUAL INACTIVITY, OF COURSE.

All these contextual problems have one root cause: your thesis rejects the common definition and instead uses a rather tortured definition of the word EUNUCH.

But, by using the most commonly used definition for EUNUCH, all these contextual problems are easily and automatically solved.

---

Jesus compares and contrasts EUNUCHS and CELEBATES.

The most common trait they have is gleaned by simply using the most commonly known definition for each group… EUNUCHS and CELEBATES:  They Don’t Have Sex

Likewise, their differences can be gleaned by using the most commonly known definition for each group and is actually stated in the text: CELEBATES make a CHOICE to remain sexually inactive; EUNUCH don’t have a CHOICE, they’re sexual inactive due to circumstances beyond their choosing

---

It would be one thing if a bunch of contextual problems arose by using the common definitions, and to straighten out the contextual problems you had to use lesser known definitions for the terms.  But that is NOT the case in Mat 19.

Instead, your thesis creates all kinds of contextual problem through its use of uncommon definitions.  But, this is your choosing, and it is a DELIBERATE choice on your part.  And you continue to do so even though you have repeatedly shown the contextual problems with your thesis.