Ok, I'm tired of this!!

Discussion in 'Family, Relationships, and Single Life' started by Gio, Aug 5, 2017.

  1. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    140
    Likes Received:
    95
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    It is extremely telling that confidently casting aside the ancients (in what Lewis called chronological snobbery) and substitute one's own authority leads just glibly missing the obvious context. It is not a mystery what terms like arsenoskoites meant to Paul or his recipients (which is why the Church has interpreted them in such a consistent manner until modernism crept in). This is because Paul was a Hellenized Jew and a rabbi writing to a group where the core original members were largely Hellenized Jews or Gentile converts to Judaism. They would have immediately picked up on Paul's use of the Septuagint.

    Tiffy if you are not going to actually stick to the topic but instead make the discussion about your own personal dislike of Stalwart, there doesn't seem to be much utility.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  2. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    187
    Likes Received:
    36
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I think I have stuck to the topic fairly closely. I certainly harbour no personal animosity to Stalwart. Disagreement with his theological opinion is not animosity and dislike should not come into it, we should all be above letting that get in the way of reaching understanding of the truth.

    The four Gospels contain 1,854 red letter verses with the spoken words of Jesus. Of these 341 are just comments, casual conversation etc. with his disciples or his audience at the time, not actual teaching. This leaves 1,513 verses to be analyzed. The Gospel of Matthew has the most red letter teaching verses both in numbers (1,071) and percentage (55%) of the total material in the book.

    The top ten subjects addressed in the teaching of Jesus are these: eternal life and salvation (46 vv; 3.04%); prayer (48 vv.; 3.17%); persecution (54 vv; 3.57%); judgment and hell (61 vv; 4.03%); predictions, especially about his disciples and himself (67 vv; 4.43%); hypocrisy (73 vv; 4.82%); second coming (79 vv; 5.22%); fate of Jerusalem and the evil generation that rejected Jesus (119 vv; 7.87%); Jesus’ identity and mission (129 vv; 8.53%). The subject that Jesus spoke about most was the kingdom (159 vv; 10.51%)—its nature, entrance requirements and nearness. There are sixteen verses which have the primary teaching emphasis on marriage and divorce (1.06%), and forty-three verses (2.84%) that address treasure and greed.

    And apparently nothing whatever on same sex relationships (per se), gender reassignment or confused sexual identity or sodomy as such, but three key verses on Child Abuse, presumably by male adults, (presumably in positions of authority, and possibly implying 'leading astray sexually, as well as more general abuse'). 0.2%

    If we have to think about unpleasant human activities and sexual perversion, we should keep that in mind, particularly with a male only priesthood.

    Since it seems Stalwart has declared 'War' on me, I will leave you both with this good Apostolic advice regarding subjects of this kind.

    Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

    So, OK I'm tired of this too now, and so I am going to follow St Paul's sensible advice and refrain from making any further comments in this thread, and think of better things.
     
  3. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    140
    Likes Received:
    95
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    It seems that most of your posts have devolved into whether Stalwart has "judged" you and have made it personal.

    The vast majority of the rest of your post has very little bearing on the subject. Are we supposed to believe that if Christ did not directly discuss it, then it is not Scripture? This would be to deny the canonicity of the OT (Marcionism) or the rest of the NT. If Christ did radically alter traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethics, it absolutely would've been noted. Considering He aligned Himself with the Shmmai faction in the Hillel-Shmmai divorce dispute (Hillel being more liberal and affirming of divorce, Shmmai being more conservative), there seems absolutely zero basis for any sexual libertinism in Christ's teaching and seems to be arguing for omission. Instead you see Him upholding the moral code of the Law, a moral teaching preserved and expounded upon by the Apostle Paul. It is only in the last century that anyone has pretended it means anything than the face value teaching.
     

Share This Page