OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 07:14:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: True 10 Commandments, looking at a woman is not a sin, Slavery was condemned  (Read 4304 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« on: January 20, 2013, 03:39:27 AM »

After studying and finding that Matthew 5:27-28 Actually Says, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

In reference to The 10 Commandments in which the Septuagint Exodus 20:17 uses the same word( epithumeó) in Jesus Christ did in Matthew 5:27-28, which means He referred to The 10th Commandment and Never changed the law and looking at a woman isn't a sin.

Courtesy Jason Staples - http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2009/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28-18

and that Covet aka Hebrew Chamad can mean take in The Tenth Commandment of the 10th Commandment

And since Deuteronomy 5:21 has Hebrew Avah which means desire AFTER Chamad(so most likely 2 different meanings, otherwise I would assume different words would be used)

and Since ganab in Thou Shall Not Steal 8th Commandment can mean kidnap

And since Exodus 21-22 is an explanation of the law which never mentions having a desire for another's property as sin, but actually taking ones property, and mentions Kidnapping(and the penalty for it is death)

It comes to me as a conclusion that these are The Real Ten Commandments:

1, You shall have no other gods before Yahweh(The True God, The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)
2, You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
3, Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
4, You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
5, Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
6, You shall not murder.
7, You shall not commit adultery.
8, You shall not Kidnap
9, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10, “You shall not take(steal) your neighbor’s house. You shall not take(steal) your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

And this has alot of implications,
#1 The Bible/God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) NEVER condoned slavery
#2 looking at a woman or desiring any woman(not of your relatives of course) isn't sin, it is sin to want to steal another woman
#3 Jesus Christ Commandments never condemned any unintentional feelings as sin(looking a woman, wishing you had what another did(modern day covet definition) but condemned doing evil, stealing, wrong anger, and greed.

Therefore whoever says desiring a woman, looking at a woman, or desiring a woman sexually adds to The Law of God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)
Whoever says The Bible condones slavery is a liar, as forced slavery is a form of kidnap.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,505


« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2013, 03:53:55 AM »

It's talking about desire or lust. Don't try to justify sin by semantics.  police
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 03:54:13 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Large Marge sent me...
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2013, 04:04:38 AM »

It's talking about desire or lust. Don't try to justify sin by semantics.  police

No kidding, right?  Such is the way of "modernized" Christianity and making it fit what man wants it to say.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 04:07:51 AM by Kerdy » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2013, 04:19:03 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2013, 04:22:53 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.
Logged
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2013, 07:19:28 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

Can't argue with that logic, can you?  If you do, you no longer share "orthodox" views...  Shocked
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2013, 07:53:20 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2013, 07:53:20 AM »

It's talking about desire or lust. Don't try to justify sin by semantics.  police

So using The Bible and reading what it originally said without altercation from man, is trying to justify sin?... hypocritical if you ask me.
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 504



« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2013, 08:35:27 AM »

Where does the bible say I can't desire my relatives?
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2013, 08:38:53 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.

Been there, done that.  I suggest you read the scriptures.
Logged
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 3,008


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2013, 08:44:00 AM »

Sorry SBC94, but I have a hard time, understanding your post. Are you saying that we are allowed to look lustfully at a woman?
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2013, 08:55:45 AM »

My suspicion is he doesn’t know what he is saying.  His posts are riddled with mistakes.  Not necessarily a bad thing, we all make mistakes.  The problem is he is too haughty and contentious to learn anything and this, at such a young age, invites disaster.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2013, 11:15:46 AM »

This is the problem with Sola Scriptura. It's all about linguistic gymnastics to find out what the Bible "really says." Turns out you can make the Bible say a lot of things. This is why the living community of God, which has produced and safeguarded the scriptures, is the guarantor of it's correct interpretation. 

I've often thought of the Scriptures like a family photo album that has been passed down from generation to generation. It stays in the family and the inheritors receive it along with all of the stories and anecdotes that give the photos context and their true interpretation. What Sola Scripturists do is remove the album from it's setting (instead of entering into the family through marriage, etc.) and then base everything upon the photos themselves, thinking that if they scrutinize them closely enough, they'll be able to piece the whole family story together.

I'm sure the analogy falls apart and is quite poor at times, but I've found it useful in conversations with many protestants.
Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,037


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2013, 11:56:57 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.

 Roll Eyes
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,037


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2013, 12:34:08 PM »

God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.

Do you even read Greek? I certainly hope that English isn't your first language because your posts are hardly intelligable.

After studying and finding that Matthew 5:27-28 Actually Says, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

In reference to The 10 Commandments in which the Septuagint Exodus 20:17 uses the same word( epithumeó) in Jesus Christ did in Matthew 5:27-28, which means He referred to The 10th Commandment and Never changed the law and looking at a woman isn't a sin.


Christ did indeed refer to it, but he added another precept to it. That we shouldn't even look lustfully to a woman.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 12:36:39 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2013, 01:20:22 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2013, 01:22:39 PM »

And to the OP

I have a question if you had a daughter, would you want people looking at her with lust
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2013, 04:32:22 PM »

And may I ask what you are doing here?  If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, shut up and listen.  If you want to spread your Protestant bull droppings, get lost.


I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2013, 04:37:40 PM »

And may I ask what you are doing here?  If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, shut up and listen.  If you want to spread your Protestant bull droppings, get lost.


I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.

+5

I love how anti-ecumenical you Serbs are Smiley
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,540


« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2013, 04:39:11 PM »

I love how anti-ecumenical you Serbs are Smiley

Punch is not a Serb.
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,450



« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2013, 04:41:26 PM »

And may I ask what you are doing here?  If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, shut up and listen.  If you want to spread your Protestant bull droppings, get lost.
Using the velvet gloves as always.

I suspect it won't be long now before SBC starts calling Punch an atheist.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2013, 04:51:55 PM »

And may I ask what you are doing here?  If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, shut up and listen.  If you want to spread your Protestant bull droppings, get lost.
Using the velvet gloves as always.

I suspect it won't be long now before SBC starts calling Punch an atheist.

And not too much longer after that that he is banned or disappears from the forum entirely like so many others.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2013, 04:59:33 PM »

And may I ask what you are doing here?  If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, shut up and listen.  If you want to spread your Protestant bull droppings, get lost.
Using the velvet gloves as always.

I suspect it won't be long now before SBC starts calling Punch an atheist.

And not too much longer after that that he is banned or disappears from the forum entirely like so many others.

Either would be very welcome.  Wink
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,450



« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2013, 05:09:09 PM »

I won’t wade into the waters of if fornication/pornea/all that is a sin. There’s really nothing to add to that discussion, which is a neverending snake eating its own tail.

But to get back on topic — while the OP shows that he doesn’t really know how translators work, I’ll leave that alone. Even if the semantic argument about coveting is correct, I don’t see how the thrust of that that passage is substantively changed. In the context of the discussion (adultery), there’s only a few ways to really understand looking at a woman with “covetousness,” and the common understanding falls well within that application.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2013, 07:19:06 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

Strongs Concordance

pornos: a fornicator
Original Word: πόρνος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: pornos
Phonetic Spelling: (por'-nos)
Short Definition: a fornicator
Definition: a fornicator, man who prostitutes himself.

"There are more passages in the New Testament that teachers twist to try to condemn premarital sex. For instance, take the multiple verses that instruct Christians to avoid "sexual immorality." The New Testament was written in Greek, and the word that refers to "sexual immorality" in those passages is the Greek word "porneia." Click here to see the definition of porneia as "illicit sexual intercourse" and all the passages where it is used. Some English translations translate "porneia" as "fornication," a word that often means, "sex before marriage." However, the most accurate translations translate "porneia" into "sexual immorality," a more general phrase. This difference is due to the fact that some translators follow their cultural traditions instead of God's Word. For instance, see Isaiah 64:6. In many English Bibles, the Hebrew words there are translated "filthy rags." That is an intentional mis-translation. The Hebrew word actually means, "menstrual rags." The translators behind the Bibles that say "filthy rags" respected their cultures' rules of etiquette more than God's Word. They mistranslated Scripture intentionally because they thought God's word was too gross or impolite. Similarly, the Greek word "porneia" is a general word referring to "sexual immorality" generally and not "fornication" specifically. This fact causes us to have to search the Scriptures if we want to know what sex, exactly, is "immoral" and what sex is not. And, again, while the Scriptures repeatedly call all sorts of sexual activities sin, the Scriptures never once call premarital sex a sin."

Courtesy Acts420 - http://www.unc.edu/~jasondm/sex.html
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2013, 07:19:06 PM »

And may I ask what you are doing here?  If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, shut up and listen.  If you want to spread your Protestant bull droppings, get lost.


I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority, not the modern day "church". in order for The orthodox church to teach proper doctrine they must stick to Originals, not man made traditions,

Brother Paul warned us about this,

Galatians 1:6-7 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the Gospel of Christ.
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2013, 07:19:31 PM »

Everybody in this thread, proving for a Fact, that looking lustfully isn't a sin, if it was we wouldn't be here,

Matthew 5:27–28: Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· οὐ μοιχεύσεις. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.


Key here is this part: πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι

transliteration, pros to epithumesai

pros to comes BEFORE epithumesai

so now just like these verses, where it would be rendered IN ORDER TO,

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men in order to be noticed by them.” (Matt 6:1)

Original Greek - Προσέχετε [a]δὲ τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑμῶν μὴ ποιεῖν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, μισθὸν οὐκ ἔχετε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν τῷ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.


“… First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles in order to burn them up ….” (Matt 13:30)

Original Greek, 30 ἄφετε συναυξάνεσθαι ἀμφότερα [a]μέχρι τοῦ θερισμοῦ· καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ θερισμοῦ ἐρῶ τοῖς θερισταῖς· Συλλέξατε πρῶτον τὰ ζιζάνια καὶ δήσατε αὐτὰ εἰς δέσμας πρὸς τὸ κατακαῦσαι αὐτά, τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην μου.

“But they do all their deeds in order to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.” (Matt 23:5)

Original Greek - 5 πάντα δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· πλατύνουσι [a]γὰρ τὰ φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν καὶ μεγαλύνουσι τὰ κράσπεδα,


“For when she poured this perfume on my body, she did it in order to prepare me for burial.” (Matt 26:12)

Original Greek - 12 βαλοῦσα γὰρ αὕτη τὸ μύρον τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματός μου πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με ἐποίησεν.

All from Matthew.

So, Matthew 5:27-28 can be either of the following from the definition of epithumesai(which is verb), something you do, the one making no sense is void.

Here we go,

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Lust is a desire, not an action even diliberate lust isn't doing something, an action is something you do, whoever looks at a woman in order to, means in order to do something, do what? lust is an emotion, a desire, etc, not an action, so this definition is null and void. if Jesus Christ meant lusting after a woman was a sin, then He would have said, whoever looks at a woman AND lust, etc, but He said whoever looks at a woman IN ORDER TO, so it's to do something, added with epithumesai is a verb, an action.

Since pros to makes this an action,  whether you like it or not, lust long for, and set the heart upon definitions are out.

Now, the last definition would be Covet, lets see,

Matthew 5:27-28 - You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Added with the fact that the word for covet and woman/wife are the same in Exodus 20:17(Septuagint)

οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου. οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ πλησίον σου οὔτε τὸν ἀγρὸν αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὴν παιδίσκην αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ βοὸς αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ ὑποζυγίου αὐτοῦ οὔτε παντὸς κτήνους αὐτοῦ οὔτε ὅσα τῷ πλησίον σού ἐστιν. (Ex 20:17 LXX)

Added with looks at a woman in order to.

The intent of the look for for a purpose, the purpose of what? in order to do what? and that in order to do is epithumesai(verb) her

So it should be rendered,

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a married woman(as same word for woman/wife is used in Septuagint version of 10th Commandment) with the intention(due to looking at a woman in order to epithumesai(verb) her) of taking her(stealing her from the husband or cheating with her due to 10th Commandment) has already committed adultery(Sex between married person and someone outside of relationship, aka cheating) with her in his heart.


So Jesus Christ is just retelling the law(Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery and 10th Commandment), He never added to The Law, The Law He originally gave at The Exodus was Fine.

Now with this fact, that covet is an action and not a desire and as proven by http://Goddidntsaythat.com/2011/03/02/the-ten-commandments-dont-forbid-coveting/

Covet in The 10 Commandments means take.

why? read the link and the fact that The 8th Commandment "Thou Shall Not Steal" uses the word ganab which can mean Kidnap

God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) gave commandments, prohibitions, on actions, which fits the entire context, desire is a natural thing that can BECOME sin, want proof?

James 1:15 - Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Desire can cause sin but isn't sin.

Therefore God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) condemned slavery and sexually desiring a woman isn't a sin,

Proverbs 5:18-19 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love

Song of Solomon 7:7-8

Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its fruit. Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the scent of your breath like apples,

Song of Solomon 8:10
I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers; then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace.

The True 10 Commandments are,

1, You shall have no other gods before Yahweh(The True God, The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)
2, You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
3, Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
4, You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
5, Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
6, You shall not murder.
7, You shall not commit adultery.
8, You shall not Kidnap
9, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10, “You shall not take(steal) your neighbor’s house. You shall not take(steal) your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

and Matthew 5:27-28 is, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a married woman with the intention of taking her(stealing her from the husband or cheating with her) has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Basically, Jesus Christ is saying, you know to not commit adultery, do not even plan or intend on taking(or cheating) with a woman, because it's as if you already did so.

Which fits well with The Rest of The Sermon of The Mount because remember,

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Jesus Christ never abolished or added any laws, The laws He gave at the exodus were fine.

For example on Oaths

Matthew 5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]

Jesus Christ was just telling us how to accomplish the law, so for adultery(cheating, unfaithfulness, can only be committed by a married person and someone else(aka cheating) He said don't even plan to do it(like King David remember)

There ya go.
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2013, 07:51:36 PM »

God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.

Do you even read Greek? I certainly hope that English isn't your first language because your posts are hardly intelligable.

After studying and finding that Matthew 5:27-28 Actually Says, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

In reference to The 10 Commandments in which the Septuagint Exodus 20:17 uses the same word( epithumeó) in Jesus Christ did in Matthew 5:27-28, which means He referred to The 10th Commandment and Never changed the law and looking at a woman isn't a sin.


Christ did indeed refer to it, but he added another precept to it. That we shouldn't even look lustfully to a woman.

Biblical Adultery is cheating, and that is a Fact no matter how much man wants to add to it, therefore whatever He said must pertain to that, looking at a woman sexually(the greek word has nothing to do with that either) has nothing to do with say, a single man sexually desiring a woman.

So obviously The Lord Jesus Christ says don't even intend to commit adultery with a married person.
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2013, 07:51:36 PM »

My suspicion is he doesn’t know what he is saying.  His posts are riddled with mistakes.  Not necessarily a bad thing, we all make mistakes.  The problem is he is too haughty and contentious to learn anything and this, at such a young age, invites disaster.

 1 Timothy 4

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

6 If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters,[a] you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. 8 For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. 9 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. 10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

11 Command and teach these things. 12 Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

15 Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. 16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2013, 07:51:36 PM »

I won’t wade into the waters of if fornication/pornea/all that is a sin. There’s really nothing to add to that discussion, which is a neverending snake eating its own tail.

But to get back on topic — while the OP shows that he doesn’t really know how translators work, I’ll leave that alone. Even if the semantic argument about coveting is correct, I don’t see how the thrust of that that passage is substantively changed. In the context of the discussion (adultery), there’s only a few ways to really understand looking at a woman with “covetousness,” and the common understanding falls well within that application.


If I don't know then please don't yap, but do a Greek  Exegesis Translation like I did, otherwise your just making noise.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2013, 08:50:17 PM »

Okay I disagree with all of your Protestant "traditions of man" crap that's been overdone millions of times, but, you made a great point with Strong's concordance and fornication--I've noticed that on my own as well in the past but never really got a satisfactory answer to it. On a more positive note though, I emailed my Priest about it opposed to apostatizing or becoming my own internet theologian.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2013, 09:01:42 PM »

but whoa whoa whoa check this,

ἡ δὲ εὐαγγέλιος φωνὴ ἐπιτατικώτερον διδάσκει περὶ ἁγνείας λέγουσα· “Πᾶς ὁ ἰδὼν γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ὁ γαμῶν” - Theophilus to Autolycus, B III, Ch 3, quoting Mt 5:28

Hmm, I wonder what ἀλλοτρίαν means...

belonging to another person, belonging to others, foreign, strange.
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2013, 09:01:42 PM »

Okay I disagree with all of your Protestant "traditions of man" crap that's been overdone millions of times, but, you made a great point with Strong's concordance and fornication--I've noticed that on my own as well in the past but never really got a satisfactory answer to it. On a more positive note though, I emailed my Priest about it opposed to apostatizing or becoming my own internet theologian.

That's funny because I see protestant as a tradition of man with it's Faith Alone and penal substitution false doctrines.

but look a my previous post on  Theophilus to Autolycus Early Church Father Document there that says Belongth to Another is apart of Matthew 5:27-28, so sexually lusting for a woman isn't a sin, Especially to The Orthodox Church and if they object then they ignore what Theophilus said and go against Early Church Fathers(who are along with The Bible valid, as they were the Early Church Fathers, no one can corrupt things that fast.)
Logged
Hiwot
Christ is Risen!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 1,959


Job 19:25-27


« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2013, 09:10:19 PM »

Sorry SBC94, but I have a hard time, understanding your post. Are you saying that we are allowed to look lustfully at a woman?

me too, wish there was a direct answer without all the Greek or so and so said this and that thingy.
Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2013, 09:18:39 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

Strongs Concordance

pornos: a fornicator
Original Word: πόρνος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: pornos
Phonetic Spelling: (por'-nos)
Short Definition: a fornicator
Definition: a fornicator, man who prostitutes himself.

"There are more passages in the New Testament that teachers twist to try to condemn premarital sex. For instance, take the multiple verses that instruct Christians to avoid "sexual immorality." The New Testament was written in Greek, and the word that refers to "sexual immorality" in those passages is the Greek word "porneia." Click here to see the definition of porneia as "illicit sexual intercourse" and all the passages where it is used. Some English translations translate "porneia" as "fornication," a word that often means, "sex before marriage." However, the most accurate translations translate "porneia" into "sexual immorality," a more general phrase. This difference is due to the fact that some translators follow their cultural traditions instead of God's Word. For instance, see Isaiah 64:6. In many English Bibles, the Hebrew words there are translated "filthy rags." That is an intentional mis-translation. The Hebrew word actually means, "menstrual rags." The translators behind the Bibles that say "filthy rags" respected their cultures' rules of etiquette more than God's Word. They mistranslated Scripture intentionally because they thought God's word was too gross or impolite. Similarly, the Greek word "porneia" is a general word referring to "sexual immorality" generally and not "fornication" specifically. This fact causes us to have to search the Scriptures if we want to know what sex, exactly, is "immoral" and what sex is not. And, again, while the Scriptures repeatedly call all sorts of sexual activities sin, the Scriptures never once call premarital sex a sin."

Courtesy Acts420 - http://www.unc.edu/~jasondm/sex.html
Premarital sex was a sin punishable by death...
13 ¶ If any man take a wife, and go in vnto her, and hate her,

14 And giue occasions of speach against her, and bring vp an euill name vpon her, and say, I tooke this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a mayd:

15 Then shal the father of the damosell, and her mother take, and bring forth the tokens of the damosels virginitie, vnto the Elders of the citie in the gate.

16 And the damosels father shall say vnto the Elders, I gaue my daughter vnto this man to wife, & he hateth her:

17 And loe, he hath giuen occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid: and yet these are the tokens of my daughters virginity; and they shall spread the cloth before the Elders of the citie.

18 And the Elders of that citie shall take that man, and chastise him.

19 And they shall amearse him in an hundred shekels of siluer, and giue them vnto the father of the damosell, because he hath brought vp an euill name vpon a virgine of Israel: and she shall be his wife, hee may not put her away all his dayes.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginitie be not found for the damosel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damosell to the doore of her fathers house, and the men of her city shal stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her fathers house: so shalt thou put euill away from among you.
-Deuteronomy 22:13-21
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 09:45:28 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2013, 09:19:05 PM »

Everybody in this thread, proving for a Fact, that looking lustfully isn't a sin, if it was we wouldn't be here,

Matthew 5:27–28: Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· οὐ μοιχεύσεις. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.


Key here is this part: πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι

transliteration, pros to epithumesai

pros to comes BEFORE epithumesai

so now just like these verses, where it would be rendered IN ORDER TO,

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men in order to be noticed by them.” (Matt 6:1)

Original Greek - Προσέχετε [a]δὲ τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑμῶν μὴ ποιεῖν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, μισθὸν οὐκ ἔχετε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν τῷ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.


“… First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles in order to burn them up ….” (Matt 13:30)

Original Greek, 30 ἄφετε συναυξάνεσθαι ἀμφότερα [a]μέχρι τοῦ θερισμοῦ· καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ θερισμοῦ ἐρῶ τοῖς θερισταῖς· Συλλέξατε πρῶτον τὰ ζιζάνια καὶ δήσατε αὐτὰ εἰς δέσμας πρὸς τὸ κατακαῦσαι αὐτά, τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην μου.

“But they do all their deeds in order to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.” (Matt 23:5)

Original Greek - 5 πάντα δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· πλατύνουσι [a]γὰρ τὰ φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν καὶ μεγαλύνουσι τὰ κράσπεδα,


“For when she poured this perfume on my body, she did it in order to prepare me for burial.” (Matt 26:12)

Original Greek - 12 βαλοῦσα γὰρ αὕτη τὸ μύρον τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματός μου πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με ἐποίησεν.

All from Matthew.

So, Matthew 5:27-28 can be either of the following from the definition of epithumesai(which is verb), something you do, the one making no sense is void.

Here we go,

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Lust is a desire, not an action even diliberate lust isn't doing something, an action is something you do, whoever looks at a woman in order to, means in order to do something, do what? lust is an emotion, a desire, etc, not an action, so this definition is null and void. if Jesus Christ meant lusting after a woman was a sin, then He would have said, whoever looks at a woman AND lust, etc, but He said whoever looks at a woman IN ORDER TO, so it's to do something, added with epithumesai is a verb, an action.

Since pros to makes this an action,  whether you like it or not, lust long for, and set the heart upon definitions are out.

Now, the last definition would be Covet, lets see,

Matthew 5:27-28 - You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Added with the fact that the word for covet and woman/wife are the same in Exodus 20:17(Septuagint)

οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου. οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ πλησίον σου οὔτε τὸν ἀγρὸν αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὴν παιδίσκην αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ βοὸς αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ ὑποζυγίου αὐτοῦ οὔτε παντὸς κτήνους αὐτοῦ οὔτε ὅσα τῷ πλησίον σού ἐστιν. (Ex 20:17 LXX)

Added with looks at a woman in order to.

The intent of the look for for a purpose, the purpose of what? in order to do what? and that in order to do is epithumesai(verb) her

So it should be rendered,

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a married woman(as same word for woman/wife is used in Septuagint version of 10th Commandment) with the intention(due to looking at a woman in order to epithumesai(verb) her) of taking her(stealing her from the husband or cheating with her due to 10th Commandment) has already committed adultery(Sex between married person and someone outside of relationship, aka cheating) with her in his heart.


So Jesus Christ is just retelling the law(Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery and 10th Commandment), He never added to The Law, The Law He originally gave at The Exodus was Fine.

Now with this fact, that covet is an action and not a desire and as proven by http://Goddidntsaythat.com/2011/03/02/the-ten-commandments-dont-forbid-coveting/

Covet in The 10 Commandments means take.

why? read the link and the fact that The 8th Commandment "Thou Shall Not Steal" uses the word ganab which can mean Kidnap

God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) gave commandments, prohibitions, on actions, which fits the entire context, desire is a natural thing that can BECOME sin, want proof?

James 1:15 - Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Desire can cause sin but isn't sin.

Therefore God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) condemned slavery and sexually desiring a woman isn't a sin,

Proverbs 5:18-19 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love

Song of Solomon 7:7-8

Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its fruit. Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the scent of your breath like apples,

Song of Solomon 8:10
I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers; then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace.

The True 10 Commandments are,

1, You shall have no other gods before Yahweh(The True God, The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)
2, You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
3, Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
4, You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
5, Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
6, You shall not murder.
7, You shall not commit adultery.
8, You shall not Kidnap
9, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10, “You shall not take(steal) your neighbor’s house. You shall not take(steal) your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

and Matthew 5:27-28 is, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a married woman with the intention of taking her(stealing her from the husband or cheating with her) has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Basically, Jesus Christ is saying, you know to not commit adultery, do not even plan or intend on taking(or cheating) with a woman, because it's as if you already did so.

Which fits well with The Rest of The Sermon of The Mount because remember,

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Jesus Christ never abolished or added any laws, The laws He gave at the exodus were fine.

For example on Oaths

Matthew 5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]

Jesus Christ was just telling us how to accomplish the law, so for adultery(cheating, unfaithfulness, can only be committed by a married person and someone else(aka cheating) He said don't even plan to do it(like King David remember)

There ya go.

I'm glad you've found salvation through lust. That's nice.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2013, 09:20:20 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

Strongs Concordance

pornos: a fornicator
Original Word: πόρνος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: pornos
Phonetic Spelling: (por'-nos)
Short Definition: a fornicator
Definition: a fornicator, man who prostitutes himself.

"There are more passages in the New Testament that teachers twist to try to condemn premarital sex. For instance, take the multiple verses that instruct Christians to avoid "sexual immorality." The New Testament was written in Greek, and the word that refers to "sexual immorality" in those passages is the Greek word "porneia." Click here to see the definition of porneia as "illicit sexual intercourse" and all the passages where it is used. Some English translations translate "porneia" as "fornication," a word that often means, "sex before marriage." However, the most accurate translations translate "porneia" into "sexual immorality," a more general phrase. This difference is due to the fact that some translators follow their cultural traditions instead of God's Word. For instance, see Isaiah 64:6. In many English Bibles, the Hebrew words there are translated "filthy rags." That is an intentional mis-translation. The Hebrew word actually means, "menstrual rags." The translators behind the Bibles that say "filthy rags" respected their cultures' rules of etiquette more than God's Word. They mistranslated Scripture intentionally because they thought God's word was too gross or impolite. Similarly, the Greek word "porneia" is a general word referring to "sexual immorality" generally and not "fornication" specifically. This fact causes us to have to search the Scriptures if we want to know what sex, exactly, is "immoral" and what sex is not. And, again, while the Scriptures repeatedly call all sorts of sexual activities sin, the Scriptures never once call premarital sex a sin."

Courtesy Acts420 - http://www.unc.edu/~jasondm/sex.html

One of nine definitions (sort of).  Now, go find the other eight.
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2013, 09:21:43 PM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 09:22:29 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2013, 09:26:07 PM »

My suspicion is he doesn’t know what he is saying.  His posts are riddled with mistakes.  Not necessarily a bad thing, we all make mistakes.  The problem is he is too haughty and contentious to learn anything and this, at such a young age, invites disaster.

 1 Timothy 4

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

6 If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters,[a] you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. 8 For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. 9 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. 10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

11 Command and teach these things. 12 Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

15 Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. 16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

And you wonder why you were banned from another forum.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2013, 09:49:05 PM »

Just a question, if we're not allowed to look at a woman lustfully, then how does one find their mate? We don't live in a world anymore where our marriages are arranged; now we have to go out and find our spouse. So how do we do that without looking at them lustfully? Isn't the sexual attraction usually what draws you toward each other first--IE, "that man is a hunk" or "she's hot" and motivates you to get to know them and then it either develops into a relationship (and later marriage) or nothing happens. Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the passage refers to looking at a married woman lustfully since she's already committed to another man and to be with her would cause her to cheat on her husband and thus cause harm? But as for single women, it wouldn't apply?--provided at least maybe you had the intention of marrying her someday if she turns out to be the right one and don't just want to nail her and then bail.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2013, 09:52:44 PM »

Just a question, if we're not allowed to look at a woman lustfully, then how does one find their mate?

At the risk of sounding cliché, you don’t marry what you see (a hottie), you marry who the person is (hottie on the inside).  Marriage is about compatibility and emotional connection, not lust.  That’s why, when looking for a spouse, you don’t look for one who turns you on today, you look for one you want to wake up next to at 67 and smells funny.

EDIT: I was very lucky.  My best friend turned into my girlfriend and I married her.  
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 09:59:20 PM by Kerdy » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2013, 09:56:29 PM »

Just a question, if we're not allowed to look at a woman lustfully, then how does one find their mate?

At the risk of sounding cliché, you don’t marry what you see (a hottie), you marry who the person is (hottie on the inside).  Marriage is about compatibility and emotional connection, not lust.  That’s why, when looking for a spouse, you don’t look for one who turns you on today, you look for one you want to wake up next to at 67 and smells funny.

You got a point, but come on, you would be lying if you said that physical attraction doesn't play at least a miniscule part in this. You're going to tell me that your wife's physical appearance was never on your mind when you were courting each other?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2013, 10:03:22 PM »

Just a question, if we're not allowed to look at a woman lustfully, then how does one find their mate? We don't live in a world anymore where our marriages are arranged; now we have to go out and find our spouse. So how do we do that without looking at them lustfully? Isn't the sexual attraction usually what draws you toward each other first--IE, "that man is a hunk" or "she's hot" and motivates you to get to know them and then it either develops into a relationship (and later marriage) or nothing happens. Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the passage refers to looking at a married woman lustfully since she's already committed to another man and to be with her would cause her to cheat on her husband and thus cause harm? But as for single women, it wouldn't apply?--provided at least maybe you had the intention of marrying her someday if she turns out to be the right one and don't just want to nail her and then bail.

It would certainly be a very convenient argument, founded on worldly wisdom.

Wanting "to nail" someone is a wonderful beginning to the life-long martyrdom that is marriage.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2013, 10:05:06 PM »

Just a question, if we're not allowed to look at a woman lustfully, then how does one find their mate? We don't live in a world anymore where our marriages are arranged; now we have to go out and find our spouse. So how do we do that without looking at them lustfully? Isn't the sexual attraction usually what draws you toward each other first--IE, "that man is a hunk" or "she's hot" and motivates you to get to know them and then it either develops into a relationship (and later marriage) or nothing happens. Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the passage refers to looking at a married woman lustfully since she's already committed to another man and to be with her would cause her to cheat on her husband and thus cause harm? But as for single women, it wouldn't apply?--provided at least maybe you had the intention of marrying her someday if she turns out to be the right one and don't just want to nail her and then bail.
Haven't you ever heard of love?  Haven't you ever heard of growing in relationships through conversations not looks?  I'm not sure if this is the *official* Church view of sex, but a wise [protestant] man once told me "sex is not intended for lust, that was satan who did that, sex is for love, a participant in a married couple should not go into sexual relations in order to feel good, but to make his or her spouse feel good, and the good feeling of said participant is a byproduct of the love, a part of God's gift, a 'reward' if you will, as cynical as that might sound."  Again, I'm not sure if that is the OFFICIAL Church teaching, and the man IS Protestant (somewhat) so take it with a grain of salt.  But in my uneducated opinion (as far as sex goes) I can't find anything wrong with that.  
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #44 on: January 20, 2013, 10:05:13 PM »

Just a question, if we're not allowed to look at a woman lustfully, then how does one find their mate?

At the risk of sounding cliché, you don’t marry what you see (a hottie), you marry who the person is (hottie on the inside).  Marriage is about compatibility and emotional connection, not lust.  That’s why, when looking for a spouse, you don’t look for one who turns you on today, you look for one you want to wake up next to at 67 and smells funny.

You got a point, but come on, you would be lying if you said that physical attraction doesn't play at least a miniscule part in this. You're going to tell me that your wife's physical appearance was never on your mind when you were courting each other?

Very miniscule.  I found her very attractive, but sex wasn’t what was on my mind, and the attractive I mean is pretty, not sexy.  I was actually looking for a wife, not a roll in the hay.  When looking for a wife, there are so many more important things to consider than if you think she looks good in a swim suit.  

The approach you are considering is one of the reasons marriage is so disposable today.  People marry because they turn each other on only to find out later they don’t even really like the other person.  This is why is it so extremely important to wait before having sexual relations.  It is only a part of marriage, not even the biggest part.  
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #45 on: January 20, 2013, 10:07:28 PM »

Just a question, if we're not allowed to look at a woman lustfully, then how does one find their mate?

At the risk of sounding cliché, you don’t marry what you see (a hottie), you marry who the person is (hottie on the inside).  Marriage is about compatibility and emotional connection, not lust.  That’s why, when looking for a spouse, you don’t look for one who turns you on today, you look for one you want to wake up next to at 67 and smells funny.

Noticing physical appearance and attraction does not equate to lust.
You got a point, but come on, you would be lying if you said that physical attraction doesn't play at least a miniscule part in this. You're going to tell me that your wife's physical appearance was never on your mind when you were courting each other?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #46 on: January 20, 2013, 10:08:58 PM »

All right, you fellows have made some goods points--especially Kerdy--that I will take to heart--however, admittedly, a lot of it doesn't fully make sense to me yet because I'm somewhat of an emotionally detached person.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #47 on: January 20, 2013, 10:17:14 PM »

All right, you fellows have made some goods points--especially Kerdy--that I will take to heart--however, admittedly, a lot of it doesn't fully make sense to me yet because I'm somewhat of an emotionally detached person.

Trust me, I wouldn’t want to trade places with you.  It was tough enough the first time around.  We all know how draining it can be.   I have even decided if something happens and I find myself without my wife, for any reason, I have no intention of looking for another.  I would spend the rest of my life learning, reading, hanging out with my dog and smoking pipes.  The smell of English tobacco is a lady repellant. laugh
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 10:17:36 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #48 on: January 20, 2013, 10:19:50 PM »

All right, you fellows have made some goods points--especially Kerdy--that I will take to heart--however, admittedly, a lot of it doesn't fully make sense to me yet because I'm somewhat of an emotionally detached person.

Trust me, I wouldn’t want to trade places with you.  It was tough enough the first time around.  We all know how draining it can be.   I have even decided if something happens and I find myself without my wife, for any reason, I have no intention of looking for another.  I would spend the rest of my life learning, reading, hanging out with my dog and smoking pipes.  The smell of English tobacco is a lady repellant. laugh

You would become an Oxford don!
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,450



« Reply #49 on: January 20, 2013, 10:43:40 PM »

I knew this sounded familiar.  Roll Eyes

Friend, you talk about doing exegetical studies, but I see no exegesis. Just jibberish.

Not that it isn't fun to watch you interact with others, but seriously, just jibberish with a theological vocabulary.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #50 on: January 20, 2013, 10:47:51 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #51 on: January 20, 2013, 11:03:37 PM »

Where does the bible say I can't desire my relatives?

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.


Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #52 on: January 20, 2013, 11:04:47 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 11:05:24 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #53 on: January 20, 2013, 11:07:40 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2013, 11:16:24 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.
Grin
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2013, 11:18:50 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.

Thats what the OSB is using, at least for the time being.
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #56 on: January 20, 2013, 11:21:01 PM »

Where does the bible say I can't desire my relatives?

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.




Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 11:23:13 PM by Kerdy » Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2013, 11:40:33 PM »

Where does the bible say I can't desire my relatives?

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.
I don't know if you know Hebrew, but in the Hebrew it gets even more fascinating...
For example Genesis 12:3 in most English Bibles says "And I will blesse them that blesse thee, and curse him, that curseth thee: and in thee shal all families of the earth be blessed."
In the Hebrew the word translated as "I will bless" is
בָרְכָ
Which can mean "bless" but can also mean "kneel to"
Also, the word for "curse him" is
  קַלֶּלְ,
Which can mean "and cursing" but also might mean "and spitting"
So it would be...
"And I will [kneel to] them that [kneel to] thee, and [spit on]  him, that [spit on] thee: and in thee shal all families of the earth be blessed."
There's more than that too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SytNaMfQv7M)
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 12:03:29 AM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2013, 11:52:50 PM »

I do not know Hebrew;  took a class once but have forgotten it all. That is a very interesting translation. Thanks for sharing!
Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #59 on: January 21, 2013, 12:12:07 AM »

I do not know Hebrew;  took a class once but have forgotten it all. That is a very interesting translation. Thanks for sharing!
Indeed, I'm trying to learn more of the ancient aleph-bets (Aramaic, pictograph, etc.) this is my favorite one

YHWH in the earliest form of Hebrew (ancient Hebrew pictograph Aleph-bet)

Christ on the Cross

Probably the biggest defense against Arianism
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #60 on: January 21, 2013, 12:14:33 AM »

I agree, that's precisely why I love Orthodoxy. It doesn't attempt to sugarcoat or disregard the parts I don't like in a mediocre manner--like many Evangelical apologist sites do--but rather strictly adheres to the full picture--no matter how stupid, outdated, harsh and miserable it may make me. Orthodoxy makes me miserable and is probably the reason for most of the stress in my life and my misery, but at least it's true.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2013, 12:19:58 AM »

I agree, that's precisely why I love Orthodoxy. It doesn't attempt to sugarcoat or disregard the parts I don't like in a mediocre manner--like many Evangelical apologist sites do--but rather strictly adheres to the full picture--no matter how stupid, outdated, harsh and miserable it may make me. Orthodoxy makes me miserable and is probably the reason for most of the stress in my life and my misery, but at least it's true.
Just as God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so is The Church...
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2013, 10:33:45 AM »

I don't believe that either protestantism or Orthodoxy comes off looking very good here (which I guess should make me happy Wink Wink).

And may I ask what you are doing here?  If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, shut up and listen.  If you want to spread your Protestant bull droppings, get lost.


I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2013, 11:05:09 AM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2013, 11:05:09 AM »

I agree, that's precisely why I love Orthodoxy. It doesn't attempt to sugarcoat or disregard the parts I don't like in a mediocre manner--like many Evangelical apologist sites do--but rather strictly adheres to the full picture--no matter how stupid, outdated, harsh and miserable it may make me. Orthodoxy makes me miserable and is probably the reason for most of the stress in my life and my misery, but at least it's true.
Just as God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so is The Church...
\
\
Sure about that? orthodox church says lust is a sin yet\

ἡ δὲ εὐαγγέλιος φωνὴ ἐπιτατικώτερον διδάσκει περὶ ἁγνείας λέγουσα· “Πᾶς ὁ ἰδὼν γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ὁ γαμῶν” - Theophilus to Autolycus, B III, Ch 3, quoting Mt 5:28

Hmm, I wonder what ἀλλοτρίαν means...

belonging to another person, belonging to others, foreign, strange.
Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2013, 12:15:36 PM »

I agree, that's precisely why I love Orthodoxy. It doesn't attempt to sugarcoat or disregard the parts I don't like in a mediocre manner--like many Evangelical apologist sites do--but rather strictly adheres to the full picture--no matter how stupid, outdated, harsh and miserable it may make me. Orthodoxy makes me miserable and is probably the reason for most of the stress in my life and my misery, but at least it's true.
Just as God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so is The Church...
\
\
Sure about that? orthodox church says lust is a sin yet\

ἡ δὲ εὐαγγέλιος φωνὴ ἐπιτατικώτερον διδάσκει περὶ ἁγνείας λέγουσα· “Πᾶς ὁ ἰδὼν γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ὁ γαμῶν” - Theophilus to Autolycus, B III, Ch 3, quoting Mt 5:28

Hmm, I wonder what ἀλλοτρίαν means...

belonging to another person, belonging to others, foreign, strange.
The Orthodox Church has always said lust is a sin.  Some of the early Church Fathers even went too far and said all Christians MUST be celibate.  IIRC there was someone in the fourth(?) century who got anathemized just for saying that marriage may be more beneficial for some people than celibacy. 
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2013, 12:21:34 PM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.

True. But the "Early Church Fathers" are part of and lights of the Orthodox Church. If you really followed them, you would be Orthodox.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 3,008


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2013, 12:30:47 PM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.
It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #68 on: January 21, 2013, 03:24:38 PM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.
It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so.

Well, maybe he is, in the same way that I'm interested in a sandwich. (Haven't had lunch yet.)

Cheesy
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #69 on: January 21, 2013, 03:26:31 PM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.

True. But the "Early Church Fathers" are part of and lights of the Orthodox Church. If you really followed them, you would be Orthodox.

No, they were part of the Catholic Church.

(Was that an overly-predictable Catholic thing to say? Wink  Embarrassed)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #70 on: January 21, 2013, 03:34:21 PM »

(Was that an overly-predictable Catholic thing to say? Wink  Embarrassed)

I don't think so. Most Roman Catholics appear to say stranger things.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #71 on: January 21, 2013, 04:44:38 PM »

Where does the bible say I can't desire my relatives?

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.




Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2013, 06:13:53 PM »

Where does the bible say I can't desire my relatives?

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.




Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?

Huh?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #73 on: January 21, 2013, 06:42:10 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.

Thats what the OSB is using, at least for the time being.
Correction: The OSB uses the New King James Version.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2013, 06:54:47 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.
This, my "friend" is another assertion you need to prove. You, like so many others before and after you, assert that Tradition is merely the work of man, but if you can't prove this, you have no leg to stand on in your arguments with the Church.

BTW, the Bible contains God's words, but only Jesus Christ is God's Word.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 06:58:36 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #75 on: January 21, 2013, 06:57:33 PM »

It's talking about desire or lust. Don't try to justify sin by semantics.  police

So using The Bible and reading what it originally said without altercation from man, is trying to justify sin?... hypocritical if you ask me.
You have not the Holy Spirit to guide you in your separation from Tradition, so of course the letter of Scripture, every jot and tittle of it, becomes your final authority, because it's all you have to hang on to.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 07:00:54 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #76 on: January 21, 2013, 07:48:41 PM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says.

This is one of my favorite canards from your ilk.

The Bible is true because the Bible says so!
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 07:50:00 PM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #77 on: January 21, 2013, 08:00:10 PM »

These sort of discussions are fruitless for the most part. If Protestants come on here, it would be better if they humble themselves and inquier what we actually believe. If there is a point of contention, you ask for clarification.

Those of us who are Orthodox on this board, don't care about Protestant polemics because we have already accepted them as false.

Come up with some new arguments, not ones that can be refuted by competent Sunday School children.

Protestant apologetics are awful these days, but considering the source, not surprising.

We need to learn to shake the dust off our feet.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #78 on: January 21, 2013, 08:06:33 PM »

Funniest Protestant circular argument.

Protestant: The Bible is infallible!!!
Atheist: Prove it
Protestant: *quotes Bible passage* All scripture is breathed by God!!!11
Atheist: That's a circular argument
Protestant: But it's in the Bible!!
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #79 on: January 21, 2013, 08:09:13 PM »

The sad part is that is used much too often. Head over to another Christian forum with an atheist involved and it's a lot of proof-texting by shooting from the hip
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 08:09:23 PM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #80 on: January 21, 2013, 08:17:02 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.
This, my "friend" is another assertion you need to prove. You, like so many others before and after you, assert that Tradition is merely the work of man, but if you can't prove this, you have no leg to stand on in your arguments with the Church.

BTW, the Bible contains God's words, but only Jesus Christ is God's Word.
There are no liturgical rubrics in the Bible, Peter!
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2013, 11:35:50 PM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.

A mistake for certain on your part.
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2013, 11:37:16 PM »

Where does the bible say I can't desire my relatives?

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.




Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?
No
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2013, 11:39:25 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.

Thats what the OSB is using, at least for the time being.
Correction: The OSB uses the New King James Version.
Really?  Oops. Embarrassed
Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 488



« Reply #84 on: January 21, 2013, 11:55:59 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

And the Bible says it's wrong too.

Prove it, actually refute the argument, no ones trying to justify sin, I'm trying to convict those who commit the sin of adding words to God's Word, The Bible.

If I'm wrong then please refute me, otherwise don't say anything out of presupposition. I'm pro Bible not tradition, tradition is man, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit's) Word is in The Greeks.
This, my "friend" is another assertion you need to prove. You, like so many others before and after you, assert that Tradition is merely the work of man, but if you can't prove this, you have no leg to stand on in your arguments with the Church.

BTW, the Bible contains God's words, but only Jesus Christ is God's Word.


One example of that is something I learned from my favorite religious professor at church.  Thinking about Islam and the four wives at one time limit, not counting slave girls, I asked about monogamy, and where in the Bible it states that polygamy is not acceptable.   The Old Testament has polygamy, and I really couldn't think of anywhere the New Testament explicitly states that polygamy is no longer acceptable.   

He said that is one of the big problems with Sola Scriptura, that there isn't anywhere that states and man can have only one wife, so officially there isn't an argument for monogamy. 

So, my rhetorical questions are, how then do 'scripture only' people argue for monogamy?  Was forcing the Mormons to give up polygamy only a state issue? 



Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #85 on: January 22, 2013, 12:27:58 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.

Thats what the OSB is using, at least for the time being.
Correction: The OSB uses the New King James Version.
Ugh, THAT heresy...
It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)
Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 12:34:51 AM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #86 on: January 22, 2013, 02:20:21 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.

Thats what the OSB is using, at least for the time being.
Correction: The OSB uses the New King James Version.
Ugh, THAT heresy...
What heresy? Huh

It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)
Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...
But how is the NKJV specifically heretical? You don't say anything about this at all.
Logged
SavedByChrist94
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Born-Again
Posts: 153


« Reply #87 on: January 22, 2013, 02:23:29 AM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.
It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

things like lusting after a woman, premartial sex, etc aren't sins, God(Jesus Christ) warned us of this,

Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.


Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #88 on: January 22, 2013, 02:25:26 AM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.
It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

things like lusting after a woman, premartial sex, etc aren't sins, God(Jesus Christ) warned us of this,

Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
You're still making assertions and expecting us to take you seriously, even though you won't lift a finger to prove your assertions true from sources other than more of your own assertions.
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #89 on: January 22, 2013, 03:02:47 AM »

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

There is a huge problem with that statement.  Just how many of the EFC's actually held a bible in their hands?
Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 488



« Reply #90 on: January 22, 2013, 04:11:50 AM »


I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.
It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.


It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?


I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

Even later? When God was looking for Adam, saying "oh Adam! Why are you hiding from me?"  Then it all came out, and Adam promptly blamed everything on God, saying, "It's this woman you gave to me."  And then they were kind at odds with each other after that, weren't they?





So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.


Which manuscripts would those be?  Have you considered that those Church Fathers, who could fluently read Greek, who often had the best education available at the time, who led holy lives without recommending fornication and lust, but rather chastity and the sanctity of marriage, might have had some insight that you don't get by looking up Greek word #143whatever?


it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

things like lusting after a woman, premartial sex, etc aren't sins, God(Jesus Christ) warned us of this,

Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.




Help them?  To fornicate, to pursue their negative passions, to do what is clearly wrong both in the tradition and in the Scriptures?  

Did it ever occur to you that those behaviours have real and tangible spiritual effects on a person?  The body and soul are together.  And what we do effects others, better that a millstone be hung around your neck.

It's like reading an Electrical Code Book.  It will tell you a lot of rules and shall's, but it doesn't tell you how to actually install an electrical system.   That's why people can't recreate first century Christendom by the Scriptures.  

Could it be you are just looking for an excuse to indulge yourself?  Most guys I know wouldn't go to this much trouble over it, they'd just do it and not pretend they're a Christian or even care anything about God.  They live after their flesh, and they see nothing wrong with it.  

As a matter of fact, I'm becoming more convinced of the idea that people who protest abortion should also be protesting men who create those unwanted children.  

Do you also think abortion is okay?  Do you think it is okay to grope women on the bus?  Where is your limit?  Which Greek word will you find next to indulge your prurient passions while being a 'Christian'?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 04:30:03 AM by Irini » Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 488



« Reply #91 on: January 22, 2013, 04:18:44 AM »

From the Didache:

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

Chapter 3. Other Sins Forbidden. My child, flee from every evil thing, and from every likeness of it. Be not prone to anger, for anger leads to murder. Be neither jealous, nor quarrelsome, nor of hot temper, for out of all these murders are engendered. My child, be not a lustful one. for lust leads to fornication. Be neither a filthy talker, nor of lofty eye, for out of all these adulteries are engendered. My child, be not an observer of omens, since it leads to idolatry. Be neither an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor be willing to took at these things, for out of all these idolatry is engendered. My child, be not a liar, since a lie leads to theft. Be neither money-loving, nor vainglorious, for out of all these thefts are engendered. My child, be not a murmurer, since it leads the way to blasphemy. Be neither self-willed nor evil-minded, for out of all these blasphemies are engendered.

Rather, be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which you have heard. You shall not exalt yourself, nor give over-confidence to your soul. Your soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse. Accept whatever happens to you as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #92 on: January 22, 2013, 04:24:50 AM »

...it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error

So I assume Jesus lied when He said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church. The Church is a physical concept with identifiable similarities and believers. You state that it's those who have faith in Christ--I agree, but that begs the question, which Christ? The Christ of the Gnostics, the Christ of the Muslims, the Christ of the Mormons etc? The point is that--as much as people like to reject it--proper dogma and doctrine ARE  vital and essential when it comes to having faith in Christ. In fact, those are the only things by which we can even know who the true Christ is. Anyone can claim to have faith in Christ, but when they have a false view of Christ, then they don't really have faith in the true Christ, but in their own idol of what they believe Christ is like. Likewise, the notion of faith in Christ being some individualistic path to discover for ourselves without any formalization, fellowship or concise dogma/doctrines is HERESY! St. Paul makes it very clear that--rather than going it alone--we are to ADHERE to the traditions we were taught by the Apostles--both in written and oral tradition (2 Thess. 2:15) and urges us to be united together in them (1 Cor. 1:10). The path you are advocating is contrary to both of these concepts, and is therefore heretical and false. Once again--in the words of St. Paul--"But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other Gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, now so I say again, if anyone preaches any other Gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed!". What you are advocating is essentially different than the original Gospel we were delivered because--contrary to St. Paul--you are advocating an individualistic approach to a relationship with Christ (contrary to the union mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:10) and are thus not adhering to the traditions we were delivered (2 Thess. 2:15).

Quote
Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

Still kinda on the fence about premarital sex, but as for this argument in general, I disagree. Guess what? The Bible is Tradition. Yes, it's true. St. Paul makes no distinction of importance in regards to written and oral teachings from them in 2 Thess. 2:15. So if you are going to say that all tradition isn't faith and is wrong, then you are also throwing out the Bible and the Apostles' own words.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 488



« Reply #93 on: January 22, 2013, 04:31:34 AM »

Wohoo!  Think I just figured out how to split long quotes apart. 
Logged
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 3,008


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #94 on: January 22, 2013, 05:13:07 AM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.
It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

things like lusting after a woman, premartial sex, etc aren't sins, God(Jesus Christ) warned us of this,

Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.



Ah, so you're not interested in Orthodoxy, why didn't you just say so? It could have spared us from a lot of discussion.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #95 on: January 22, 2013, 05:19:39 AM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.
It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

things like lusting after a woman, premartial sex, etc aren't sins, God(Jesus Christ) warned us of this,

Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.




Ah, so you're not interested in Orthodoxy, why didn't you just say so? It could have spared us from a lot of discussion.


That much was obvious from his first post on the forum.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 3,008


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #96 on: January 22, 2013, 05:28:50 AM »

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.
It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

things like lusting after a woman, premartial sex, etc aren't sins, God(Jesus Christ) warned us of this,

Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.




Ah, so you're not interested in Orthodoxy, why didn't you just say so? It could have spared us from a lot of discussion.


That much was obvious from his first post on the forum.  Roll Eyes
I know, I was just trying to state a point  Smiley
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #97 on: January 22, 2013, 05:32:20 AM »

Fair enough.  Wink
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #98 on: January 22, 2013, 07:32:00 AM »

Wohoo!  Think I just figured out how to split long quotes apart. 

Awesome. Some folks can't even figure out how to use a quote tag period.

If you are going to split quotes, try to use the the first quote tag generated at the beginning of the quote box for the start of each quote (that makes no sense probably, I am very tired). It makes it easier to check to see the words were in the quote to begin with.

Wohoo!

Think I

just figured out

how to split


long quotes apart.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #99 on: January 22, 2013, 08:23:46 AM »

Where does the bible say I can't desire my relatives?

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.




Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?
No
Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #100 on: January 22, 2013, 08:50:25 AM »

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 3,008


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #101 on: January 22, 2013, 09:05:44 AM »

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)
I like you Peter  Smiley
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #102 on: January 22, 2013, 09:59:47 AM »

Where does the bible say I can't desire my relatives?

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.




Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?
No
Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years?  I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #103 on: January 22, 2013, 10:42:42 AM »


Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?
No
Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years?  I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting them on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t", right?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #104 on: January 22, 2013, 10:58:18 AM »

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)

The only problem is that he is correct as far as such things go. If people were more charitable to the more "interesting" posters, you might see how quite right they are.

If the poster isn't correct, could you please show me The Official Church Building?

And all things flow from Scripture.

In short, NBD.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #105 on: January 22, 2013, 12:05:45 PM »

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)

The only problem is that he is correct as far as such things go. If people were more charitable to the more "interesting" posters, you might see how quite right they are.

If the poster isn't correct, could you please show me The Official Church Building?

Well ... I'm afraid I can't, at least not off the top of my head. Although, if you could tell me when it was last known to have existed and what it looked like, that might help.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #106 on: January 22, 2013, 10:25:32 PM »

[/Quote]
One example of that is something I learned from my favorite religious professor at church.  Thinking about Islam and the four wives at one time limit, not counting slave girls, I asked about monogamy, and where in the Bible it states that polygamy is not acceptable.   The Old Testament has polygamy, and I really couldn't think of anywhere the New Testament explicitly states that polygamy is no longer acceptable.  

He said that is one of the big problems with Sola Scriptura, that there isn't anywhere that states and man can have only one wife, so officially there isn't an argument for monogamy.  

So, my rhetorical questions are, how then do 'scripture only' people argue for monogamy?  Was forcing the Mormons to give up polygamy only a state issue?  

[/quote]

Irini, I do not want to hijack this thread and take it in another direction, but if you would like to start a thread about whether monogamy is taught in the Bible I will join in with some thoughts.

Another quote, this one from Orthonorm: Awesome. Some folks can't even figure out how to use a quote tag period.
Ha! That would be me!
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 10:38:09 PM by BrotherAidan » Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,450



« Reply #107 on: January 22, 2013, 11:23:11 PM »

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)

The only problem is that he is correct as far as such things go. If people were more charitable to the more "interesting" posters, you might see how quite right they are.

If the poster isn't correct, could you please show me The Official Church Building?
Based on the postings on this site, I assume it's this strange former mosque in Turkey:



I am only a few years into this Orthodoxy thing, but the impression I have gotten from the Internets is that this is the Most Important Official Orthodox Building In History Ever Anywhere™.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #108 on: January 23, 2013, 12:08:18 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.

Thats what the OSB is using, at least for the time being.
Correction: The OSB uses the New King James Version.
Ugh, THAT heresy...
What heresy? Huh

It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)
Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...
But how is the NKJV specifically heretical? You don't say anything about this at all.
as I said before, it's going in a downward spiral of Protestant wording and bias.  There is even [small] talk of discontinuing all KJV/AV versions with the "apocrypha" other than the 1611/1613.  It is a lot smaller than the discussions for other translations (like many of the ones who didn't even include any form of apocrypha, as if putting them in a seperate section entitled with a word that means "hidden" wasn't bad enough).

I could write a book about what is going wrong with most Bible translations nowadays (and many people already have)

also, here are a few things you should make note of if you get any online parallel tools
Genesis 2:18
Genesis 22:8 (possible Arianism)
Genesis 24:47 (although there is some debate)
Psalm 109:6 removes "satan" as well as many other foremost translations like NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV
St. Mathew 12:40
St. Matthew 18:26 (blasphemy)
St. Luke 21:8
St. John 1:3 (Arian Blasphemy)
St. John 4:24 (wording strangely Kabbalistic and highly blasphemous)
St. John 14:6 (debateable blasphemy against Holy Spirit)
Acts 4:27-30 (two appearances of Arian Blasphemy)
Phillipians 2:6 (Arian blasphemy, probably the worst one on this list)
1 Timothy 6:5 (does not correspond with original Greek if I've been told correctly)
1 Timothy 6:10 (same as above)
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 12:33:59 AM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #109 on: January 23, 2013, 02:02:40 AM »

Just a question, if we're not allowed to look at a woman lustfully, then how does one find their mate?

At the risk of sounding cliché, you don’t marry what you see (a hottie), you marry who the person is (hottie on the inside).  Marriage is about compatibility and emotional connection, not lust.  That’s why, when looking for a spouse, you don’t look for one who turns you on today, you look for one you want to wake up next to at 67 and smells funny.

You got a point, but come on, you would be lying if you said that physical attraction doesn't play at least a miniscule part in this. You're going to tell me that your wife's physical appearance was never on your mind when you were courting each other?

Very miniscule.  I found her very attractive, but sex wasn’t what was on my mind, and the attractive I mean is pretty, not sexy.  I was actually looking for a wife, not a roll in the hay.  When looking for a wife, there are so many more important things to consider than if you think she looks good in a swim suit.  

The approach you are considering is one of the reasons marriage is so disposable today.  People marry because they turn each other on only to find out later they don’t even really like the other person.  This is why is it so extremely important to wait before having sexual relations.  It is only a part of marriage, not even the biggest part.  

I have to agree here. My wife and I found each other attractive but it was the conversation that hooked us and her personality and the "getting to know her" that made me think that she brought out the best in me. My desire to be a better man because of my relationship with her and my desire to make her happy is what lead to marriage. Any lust was due to my own sinful failings and from the bad habits I brought into the relationship from previous ones.

Glory to God, we celebrated 9 yrs last December!
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #110 on: January 23, 2013, 02:11:19 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.

Thats what the OSB is using, at least for the time being.
Correction: The OSB uses the New King James Version.
Ugh, THAT heresy...
What heresy? Huh

It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)
Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...
But how is the NKJV specifically heretical? You don't say anything about this at all.
as I said before, it's going in a downward spiral of Protestant wording and bias.  There is even [small] talk of discontinuing all KJV/AV versions with the "apocrypha" other than the 1611/1613.  It is a lot smaller than the discussions for other translations (like many of the ones who didn't even include any form of apocrypha, as if putting them in a seperate section entitled with a word that means "hidden" wasn't bad enough).

I could write a book about what is going wrong with most Bible translations nowadays (and many people already have)

also, here are a few things you should make note of if you get any online parallel tools
Genesis 2:18
Genesis 22:8 (possible Arianism)
Genesis 24:47 (although there is some debate)
Psalm 109:6 removes "satan" as well as many other foremost translations like NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV
St. Mathew 12:40
St. Matthew 18:26 (blasphemy)
St. Luke 21:8
St. John 1:3 (Arian Blasphemy)
St. John 4:24 (wording strangely Kabbalistic and highly blasphemous)
St. John 14:6 (debateable blasphemy against Holy Spirit)
Acts 4:27-30 (two appearances of Arian Blasphemy)
Phillipians 2:6 (Arian blasphemy, probably the worst one on this list)
1 Timothy 6:5 (does not correspond with original Greek if I've been told correctly)
1 Timothy 6:10 (same as above)
You're still talking about a great number of modern translations and including the NKJV in your gross generalizations without addressing the substance of the NKJV specifically. That doesn't answer my question, so let's try again. What specifically do you find heretical about the New King James Version? In answer to my question, please limit your criticism solely to the New King James Version.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 02:22:59 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #111 on: January 23, 2013, 05:12:42 AM »


Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?
No
Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years?  I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting them on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t", right?

It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things. 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #112 on: January 23, 2013, 09:18:57 AM »


Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?
No
Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years?  I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting them on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t", right?

It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things. 

This post, like your earlier one, seems to me to imply that you put the Oriental Orthodox on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #113 on: January 23, 2013, 09:21:53 AM »


Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not.  It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this.  It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different.  It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.
You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?
No
Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years?  I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting them on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t", right?

It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things. 

This post, like your earlier one, seems to me to imply that you put the Oriental Orthodox on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t".

I get the feeling we are talking past one another.
Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #114 on: January 23, 2013, 07:57:12 PM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.

Thats what the OSB is using, at least for the time being.
Correction: The OSB uses the New King James Version.
Ugh, THAT heresy...
What heresy? Huh

It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)
Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...
But how is the NKJV specifically heretical? You don't say anything about this at all.
as I said before, it's going in a downward spiral of Protestant wording and bias.  There is even [small] talk of discontinuing all KJV/AV versions with the "apocrypha" other than the 1611/1613.  It is a lot smaller than the discussions for other translations (like many of the ones who didn't even include any form of apocrypha, as if putting them in a seperate section entitled with a word that means "hidden" wasn't bad enough).

I could write a book about what is going wrong with most Bible translations nowadays (and many people already have)

also, here are a few things you should make note of if you get any online parallel tools
Genesis 2:18
Genesis 22:8 (possible Arianism)
Genesis 24:47 (although there is some debate)
Psalm 109:6 removes "satan" as well as many other foremost translations like NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV
St. Mathew 12:40
St. Matthew 18:26 (blasphemy)
St. Luke 21:8
St. John 1:3 (Arian Blasphemy)
St. John 4:24 (wording strangely Kabbalistic and highly blasphemous)
St. John 14:6 (debateable blasphemy against Holy Spirit)
Acts 4:27-30 (two appearances of Arian Blasphemy)
Phillipians 2:6 (Arian blasphemy, probably the worst one on this list)
1 Timothy 6:5 (does not correspond with original Greek if I've been told correctly)
1 Timothy 6:10 (same as above)
You're still talking about a great number of modern translations and including the NKJV in your gross generalizations without addressing the substance of the NKJV specifically. That doesn't answer my question, so let's try again. What specifically do you find heretical about the New King James Version? In answer to my question, please limit your criticism solely to the New King James Version.
Actually no, I was only talking about the NKJV vs. the KJV, when I said to go on an online parallel for the verses.  As you can see, much of it has been reworded for some reason, and it matches some Arian/New Age/Kabbalistic ideology.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 07:58:04 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,997


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #115 on: January 24, 2013, 12:28:57 AM »

The OSB commentary clears up most possible heresies from the NKJV of the New Testament so does it really matter? Sure it could have been better, but most Orthodox who use the OSB are probably going to be converts who are new to the faith, so they probably will not even notice any of the heretical aspects because they'll be so busy focusing on everything else and talking to their spiritual fathers.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #116 on: January 24, 2013, 02:01:01 AM »

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

This guy is hardcore.
Who?  St. Paul, SBC94, JamesR, or me?

You for using the actual KJV.

Thats what the OSB is using, at least for the time being.
Correction: The OSB uses the New King James Version.
Ugh, THAT heresy...
What heresy? Huh

It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)
Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...
But how is the NKJV specifically heretical? You don't say anything about this at all.
as I said before, it's going in a downward spiral of Protestant wording and bias.  There is even [small] talk of discontinuing all KJV/AV versions with the "apocrypha" other than the 1611/1613.  It is a lot smaller than the discussions for other translations (like many of the ones who didn't even include any form of apocrypha, as if putting them in a seperate section entitled with a word that means "hidden" wasn't bad enough).

I could write a book about what is going wrong with most Bible translations nowadays (and many people already have)

also, here are a few things you should make note of if you get any online parallel tools
Genesis 2:18
Genesis 22:8 (possible Arianism)
Genesis 24:47 (although there is some debate)
Psalm 109:6 removes "satan" as well as many other foremost translations like NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV
St. Mathew 12:40
St. Matthew 18:26 (blasphemy)
St. Luke 21:8
St. John 1:3 (Arian Blasphemy)
St. John 4:24 (wording strangely Kabbalistic and highly blasphemous)
St. John 14:6 (debateable blasphemy against Holy Spirit)
Acts 4:27-30 (two appearances of Arian Blasphemy)
Phillipians 2:6 (Arian blasphemy, probably the worst one on this list)
1 Timothy 6:5 (does not correspond with original Greek if I've been told correctly)
1 Timothy 6:10 (same as above)
You're still talking about a great number of modern translations and including the NKJV in your gross generalizations without addressing the substance of the NKJV specifically. That doesn't answer my question, so let's try again. What specifically do you find heretical about the New King James Version? In answer to my question, please limit your criticism solely to the New King James Version.
Actually no, I was only talking about the NKJV vs. the KJV, when I said to go on an online parallel for the verses.  As you can see, much of it has been reworded for some reason, and it matches some Arian/New Age/Kabbalistic ideology.
I did the comparative reading for myself and learned just how laughable it is that you work so hard to find heresy and blasphemy where there is none of either. Let's look, for example, at Matthew 18:26. To fall down before (NKJV) is the literal definition of "worship" (KJV). It makes no difference whether we call Jesus Lord (KJV) or Master (NKJV), especially considering that the Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim starts with the phrase "O Lord AND Master..." Besides, this passage from the Gospel of Matthew was a parable, a parable, which means that Jesus was not identifying Himself explicitly as the "Lord" and "master" of whom He spoke in this verse.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 03:08:14 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,450



« Reply #117 on: January 24, 2013, 12:25:40 PM »

Actually no, I was only talking about the NKJV vs. the KJV, when I said to go on an online parallel for the verses.  As you can see, much of it has been reworded for some reason, and it matches some Arian/New Age/Kabbalistic ideology.
I did the comparative reading for myself and learned just how laughable it is that you work so hard to find heresy and blasphemy where there is none of either. Let's look, for example, at Matthew 18:26. To fall down before (NKJV) is the literal definition of "worship" (KJV). It makes no difference whether we call Jesus Lord (KJV) or Master (NKJV), especially considering that the Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim starts with the phrase "O Lord AND Master..." Besides, this passage from the Gospel of Matthew was a parable, a parable, which means that Jesus was not identifying Himself explicitly as the "Lord" and "master" of whom He spoke in this verse.
And here I was thinking I had left the strange folk religion of KJV-onlyism with the Baptists. What would we call this? Sola 1611?

My favorite online rant against the NKJV was about the alleged pagan markings on its original cover.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 12:27:21 PM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.506 seconds with 145 queries.