|
RobertFlanders
|
51# |
Registered:
22/07/2008
|
Reply To Episkopeo
(Date Posted:28/07/2008 00:21:43)
Hi Epi, I will respond to your post as you seem to be the only one who actually searches and studies the scriptures. Here are some scriptures OT and NT regarding sexual intimacy between a couple. You will see that there is no penalty nor has it been called "fornication." Exodus 22 v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him (for no money), he shall pay the money according to the dowry of virgins. (and then marry her) Deut 22 v 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. 1 Cor 7 v 9 However if you cannot contain your desires you should get married, it is better for you to get married than to burn with sexual desire. 1 Cor 7 v 36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not, let them marry. The Biblical direction is for the Father and the Church is for the couple to be engaged and married at an appropriate time and not condemn the couple. It would only become fornication if one of the couples was not loyal to their partner and found another partner rather than fulfilling the marriage. (This would have been revealed by the blood on the wedding night) The couple were not to continue in sexual activity until after the marriage. The groom was to go and prepare a home for the bride and once this was done the father of the bride allowed the marriage. Sometimes a dowry would be paid also before the marriage took place. Epi if you have some scriptural examples on your interpretation then please show them to me. Or if anybody else reading this post wants to show me their scriptural examples on their interpretation without negative, baseless talk then show them to me. Robert.
(Message edited by Uncoolman On 28/07/2008 07:57:00)
|
|
brolga
|
52# |
Rank:Poster Grande III
Score:14470
Registered:
01/03/2007
|
RE:RCI Members Consider
(Date Posted:28/07/2008 00:25:29)
Ian,
Thanks,that has answered many questions for me.
re: Yes, but only in circles where God's Word and Church teaching are deemed to be largely irrelevant.
You did mean 'church' circles'?
I couldn't imagine God's Word being irrelevant.
Ralph
Fww, Epistles of Mathetes to Diognetus was recomended reading by Biblical training site.
(Message moved here by Uncoolman on 2008-07-28 19:24:44.717)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Who said it could not be done? And tell me what great victories does he have to his credit which qualifies him to judge others accurately?
|
|
RobertFlanders
|
53# |
Registered:
22/07/2008
|
RE:RCI Members Consider
(Date Posted:28/07/2008 01:00:58)
Reply to misterkilometres
Robert,
As a theme - Mathew5 v 28, gives us a general theme that if we even look at a woman lustfully we have commited sin.
Lust is lust - and is sin, no matter if it is unmarried people or not. It is quite clear to me that if two young people who were unmarried had sex, it is a result of lust - sin. So whether or not a church would call them fornicators or not really doesn't make a difference because it all falls under the sin of lust. It does not matter the size of the sin. It does not matter even if it was not a sexual act that was the result of lust, for example lusting after a sportscar, it is still the outcome of lust, then it is sin.
How can you say there is no sin imputed to an unmarried couple who have had sex? It just doesn't matter what label you put on it or not put on it - it is sin and needs to be repented of.
As I said in my previous post - I can understand how you may have come up with your conclusions, but I cannot agree with them myself. I certainly do think we ought to deal with pre-marital sex in a biblical way, and not the way RCI and other errant theologically unsound churches do.
In the end of the day, I hope that you will reconsider and re-clarify your position on this issue, and back it up other material that is quotable.
Robert, I have recently had the pleasure of stripping back my beleifs back to Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Then I had a look at the basics of theology, and building up a set of beleifs that are well founded in a theology that I agree with, and is a result of higher learning. Can I suggest you do the same? You have been grappling with this issue for how many years now?
Robert, I really want you to have peace on this issue.
This was not intended a a negative cop out, but I understand if you are not in agreeance with me - you don't have to be.
Best regards,
Paul Miles. |
Hi Paul, My wife S. knows you and N well when she saw your picture. S and N apparently have known each other for some time. S sends her best to both of you. Yes I have been on this message for some time because of the baseless condemnation of the youth. At times sex can be a lust with no intent of marriage which is a sin and condemn but in many cases it also can be the part of the intimacy of love between two people and should be responded with support for marriage by the Church and parents and not this baseless condemnation. Here are some scriptures OT and NT regarding sexual intimacy between a couple. You will see that there is no penalty nor has it been called “fornication.” Exodus 22 v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him (for no money), he shall pay the money according to the dowry of virgins. (and then marry her) Deut 22 v 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. 1 Cor 7 v 9 However if you cannot contain your desires you should get married, it is better for you to get married than to burn with sexual desire. 1 Cor 7 v 36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not, let them marry. The Biblical direction is for the Father and the Church is for the couple to be engaged and married at an appropriate time and not condemn the couple. It would only become fornication if one of the couples was not loyal to their partner and found another partner rather than fulfilling the marriage. (This would have been revealed by the blood on the wedding night) The couple were not to continue in sexual activity until after the marriage. The groom was to go and prepare a home for the bride and once this was done the father of the bride allowed the marriage. Sometimes a dowry would be paid also before the marriage took place. Paul I respect your thoughts on this and maybe we cannot see eye to eye on this but thanks for your dignified response to this subject. As you can see this forum is a mind field when you have something to say. I am also happy where I am and the approach I am taking. God Bless, Robert.
(Message moved here by Uncoolman on 2008-07-28 19:25:24.327)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
54# |
Rank:Posterior Maximus I
Score:17390
Registered:
29/08/2007
|
Reply To RobertFlanders
(Date Posted:28/07/2008 01:16:07)
Buenos dias, Roberto.
I will respond to your post as you seem to be the only one who actually searches and studies the scriptures. Or, perhaps it's more a case that you simply refuse to accept the advice previously provided to you by me?
The Biblical direction is for the Father and the Church is for the couple to be engaged and married at an appropriate time and not condemn the couple. Really? Would you please show me a single Scripture that says a Christian couple needs to become engaged and married after engaging in illicit coitus. I can find several that provide advice of this sort prior to the sin, but can't find any that take effect after the act.
It would only become fornication if one of the couples was not loyal to their partner and found another partner rather than fulfilling the marriage. (This would have been revealed by the blood on the wedding night) Ah, but we've already addressed what the appropriate Hebrew and Greek words mean, haven't we? And then in some detail. Now this weekend past I trolled through my Hebrew concordance (Even/Shoshan), my Septuagint concordance (Hatch/Redpath) and my Greek concordance (Moulton/Geden) trying to find a single Hebrew or Greek reference that supports your idiosyncratic (read, 'novel') view. I read my BHS, LXX and GNT until I became bleary-eyed, but I still couldn't find one. Further, I reached for the NIDOTTE, NIDNTT and TDNT looking for a definition of "fornication" that even remotely supported your contention, but, 'nope', I couldn't find a single one! As rewarding as the exercise was for me, I suppose it simply proved the difference that exists in understanding between a person who can read Scripture in the original, and one who cannot. The former is much less likely to import 'novel' ideas into the text than is the latter.
The couple were not to continue in sexual activity until after the marriage. The groom was to go and prepare a home for the bride and once this was done the father of the bride allowed the marriage. Sometimes a dowry would be paid also before the marriage took place. You've said this several times now, but as I requested previously, I'd like for you to quote for me the references that support the above contention. After all, I've already shown you what the Jews of Jesus' day thought, taught and practiced. Oh, and BTW, the Jewish custom was for the young groom to move in and live with the brides's parents during the first year of the marriage. The custom with the Greeks was for the bride and groom to move into the groom's father's house after the marriage. Yet again you've demonstrated that your opinions simply idea aren't supported by the facts of history. We should be surprised?!
Epi if you have some scriptural examples on your interpretation then please show them to me. Or if anybody else reading this post wants to show me their scriptural examples on their interpretation without negative, baseless talk then show them to me. I suppose we could could start with 1 Corinthians 7:1(b)-2, which actually introduces the context of the passage you've proof-texted for us previously. '"...It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.' (ESV). The word translated "sexual immorality" in our passage is porneias, the accusative plural form of porneia, the proper meaning of which I addressed in an earlier post on a different thread. 'Man' and 'woman'; not 'husband/betrothed' and 'another woman'. 'Sexual immorality' (i.e. fornication); not adultery. Are you getting any of this yet? You're wrong. Accept it, repent, and move forwards.
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 28/07/2008 04:15:03)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Talmid
|
55# |
Rank:Rookier III
Score:2160
Registered:
21/04/2008
|
RE: Reply to Robert Flanders
(Date Posted:28/07/2008 02:49:23)
Yo Robert,
First let me be clear that as far as I can see forgiveness and restoration is available to any one who confesses and repents of any sin.
Or if anybody else reading this post wants to show me their scriptural examples on their interpretation without negative, baseless talk then show them to me.
You actually provide your own counter-example viz, Ex 22:16-17. Your parenthetical additions (a somewhat bold move given how carefully God regards His word), which quite change the meaning of the verses, are unwarranted as far as I can see. You'll see it clearly for yourself when you look at translations closer to today's English than the AV e.g., Msg, Amp, NLT, ESV, NIV. I'd be interested to know if there are any translations by people who can actually read the ancient Hebrew which support your 'additions'.
The text actually gives the father the option of refusing to give his daughter to the 'seducer'. Also, a penalty is imposed here. The seducer is required to pay an amount equivalent to the dowry even if he isn't given the daughter.
.
.
.
On a more serious note, did I understand correctly your comments in another thread that you still believe the RCI link between tongues and the Holy Spirit - that glossolalia/tongues are the sign that one has received the Spirit?
(Message edited by Talmid On 28/07/2008 02:55:03)
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
| |
