-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J
Hi, Agricola.
In retrospect, my last response to you sounds a bit "cold" or even condescending, so I apologize for that. Neither was my intent. I'm simply a bit rushed for time right now, especially in that I have company arriving later on this morning, but I wanted to readdress this quickly in a more polite and gentle manner.
When it comes to judging "a word" or when it comes to determining whether or not the same truly proceeds forth from the Lord as opposed to proceeding forth from either Satan or a demon, I believe that it is always best to keep the following in mind:
II Peter chapter 1
[16] For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[18] And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
[19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Here, Peter relates to his readers some of the events which transpired while he, James and John "were with Him", Jesus, "in the holy mount" or while they were with Him upon the Mount of Transfiguration. I mean, think about what Peter both saw and heard there:
Peter saw Jesus transfigured before him and His face did shine as the sun and His raiment (clothing) was white as the light (Matthew 17:2)...
Peter saw Moses and Elijah who appeared in glory (Luke 9:30-31)...
Peter heard Moses and Elijah speak to Jesus of His decease or of His death which He would accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31)...
Peter saw a bright cloud overshadow him (Matthew 17:5) and he feared as he entered into said cloud (Luke 9:34)...
Peter heard the voice of God the Father out of the cloud which said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him" (Matthew 17:5)...
That's some pretty serious stuff there, isn't it? I mean, if you want to talk about some "heavy revvy's (revelations)", then that list is going to be pretty hard to top, isn't it?
Well, no, actually it isn't hard to top at all...which leads me to my point.
Even though Peter saw all of these these things with his own two eyes and heard all of these things with his own two ears, he still said the following:
II Peter chapter 1
[19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Did you catch that?
Despite any "vision" or "word" which Peter had personally received, he still understood and taught that "we have also A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, unti the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts". IOW, Peter understood and taught that THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS trump any and every "vision" or "word"...and how much moreso if any "vision" or "word" contradicts the same? Yes, Peter knew, first and foremost ("knowing this FIRST") that "no prophecy of THE SCRIPTURE is of any private interpretation for" or because "the prophecy came NOT in old time BY THE WILL OF MAN: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".
There are MANY "visions" and "words" today, even as there were in Peter's day and prior, which are NOT "Holy Ghost" inspired, but which rather are either demonically inspired or which simply originate in "the will of man". We need to ALWAYS compare any "vision" or "word" to the written, revealed Holy Ghost inspired Word of God to see if there is either agreement or disagreement amongst the same. In each and every case where either a "vision" or a "word" contradicts that which is contained in the written, revealed Holy Ghost inspired Word of God, we should discount such a "vision" or "word" as NOT having originated with God, but rather with Satan or demons. IOW, the Holy Ghost is NEVER going to inspire either a "vision" or "word" which contradicts the written, revealed Word of God which He has ALREADY inspired:
II Timothy chapter 3
[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Part of this "all scripture" which was "given by inspiration of God" or which was Holy Ghost inspired is the Old Testament. Again, when God ordained a natural marriage between a man and his wife to be a reflection of the spiritual union between Christ (the Bridegroom) and His church (the bride) way back in Genesis, He did so with the intent that what He had joined together ought not be "put asunder" or separated by man. Yes, as Jesus said, "they are NO MORE TWAIN" or "NO MORE TWO" and "NO MORE" means "NO MORE":
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:4-6)
Anyhow, again, I apologize if my previous response came across as sounding either "cold" or condescending...or both. That certainly wasn't my intention.
Thanks for reading/considering.
In retrospect, my last response to you sounds a bit "cold" or even condescending, so I apologize for that. Neither was my intent. I'm simply a bit rushed for time right now, especially in that I have company arriving later on this morning, but I wanted to readdress this quickly in a more polite and gentle manner.
When it comes to judging "a word" or when it comes to determining whether or not the same truly proceeds forth from the Lord as opposed to proceeding forth from either Satan or a demon, I believe that it is always best to keep the following in mind:
II Peter chapter 1
[16] For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[18] And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
[19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Here, Peter relates to his readers some of the events which transpired while he, James and John "were with Him", Jesus, "in the holy mount" or while they were with Him upon the Mount of Transfiguration. I mean, think about what Peter both saw and heard there:
Peter saw Jesus transfigured before him and His face did shine as the sun and His raiment (clothing) was white as the light (Matthew 17:2)...
Peter saw Moses and Elijah who appeared in glory (Luke 9:30-31)...
Peter heard Moses and Elijah speak to Jesus of His decease or of His death which He would accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31)...
Peter saw a bright cloud overshadow him (Matthew 17:5) and he feared as he entered into said cloud (Luke 9:34)...
Peter heard the voice of God the Father out of the cloud which said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him" (Matthew 17:5)...
That's some pretty serious stuff there, isn't it? I mean, if you want to talk about some "heavy revvy's (revelations)", then that list is going to be pretty hard to top, isn't it?
Well, no, actually it isn't hard to top at all...which leads me to my point.
Even though Peter saw all of these these things with his own two eyes and heard all of these things with his own two ears, he still said the following:
II Peter chapter 1
[19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Did you catch that?
Despite any "vision" or "word" which Peter had personally received, he still understood and taught that "we have also A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, unti the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts". IOW, Peter understood and taught that THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS trump any and every "vision" or "word"...and how much moreso if any "vision" or "word" contradicts the same? Yes, Peter knew, first and foremost ("knowing this FIRST") that "no prophecy of THE SCRIPTURE is of any private interpretation for" or because "the prophecy came NOT in old time BY THE WILL OF MAN: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".
There are MANY "visions" and "words" today, even as there were in Peter's day and prior, which are NOT "Holy Ghost" inspired, but which rather are either demonically inspired or which simply originate in "the will of man". We need to ALWAYS compare any "vision" or "word" to the written, revealed Holy Ghost inspired Word of God to see if there is either agreement or disagreement amongst the same. In each and every case where either a "vision" or a "word" contradicts that which is contained in the written, revealed Holy Ghost inspired Word of God, we should discount such a "vision" or "word" as NOT having originated with God, but rather with Satan or demons. IOW, the Holy Ghost is NEVER going to inspire either a "vision" or "word" which contradicts the written, revealed Word of God which He has ALREADY inspired:
II Timothy chapter 3
[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Part of this "all scripture" which was "given by inspiration of God" or which was Holy Ghost inspired is the Old Testament. Again, when God ordained a natural marriage between a man and his wife to be a reflection of the spiritual union between Christ (the Bridegroom) and His church (the bride) way back in Genesis, He did so with the intent that what He had joined together ought not be "put asunder" or separated by man. Yes, as Jesus said, "they are NO MORE TWAIN" or "NO MORE TWO" and "NO MORE" means "NO MORE":
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:4-6)
Anyhow, again, I apologize if my previous response came across as sounding either "cold" or condescending...or both. That certainly wasn't my intention.
Thanks for reading/considering.
Last edited:
Makes her an adulteress
"The Greek, by using the passive voice of the verb, states not what the woman becomes or what she does but what she undergoes, suffers, is exposed to. She suffers wrong. He [the husband initiating the divorce] does wrong. To be sure, she herself also may become guilty, but that is not the point which Jesus is emphasizing. Far better, it would seem to me, is therefore the translation, “Whoever divorces his wife except on the basis of infidelity exposes her to adultery,” or something similar (1973, 306)."..........William Hendriksen
"That every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress. The mere fact of divorce did not make her an adulteress, but it brought her into a state of disgrace from which she invariably sought to free herself by contracting another marriage, and this other marriage to which her humiliating situation drove her made her an adulteress. " JW McGarvey
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Makes her an adulteress"
Another view is that Jesus assumes, given the culture of that day, that a divorced woman would be driven to find another man, having been cast out. Since, in the contemplation of the language employed, she did not have a valid reason for a remarriage, joining herself to another man would place her in an adulterous union.
And so the sense of the phrase would be: “she is caused to commit adultery [by the dire circumstances which impel her to contract a subsequent marriage].” This is the sense assigned by William Arndt and F. W. Gingrich (1967, 528). Wayne Jackson
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/324-what-does-makes-her-an-adulteress-mean
He that puts away his wife without the cause of fornication makes her commit adultery": that is, if she commits adultery: or although she commit not adultery in act, yet he is guilty of all the lustful motions of her that is put away; for he that lustfully desires, is said "to commit adultery," verse 28 John Lighfoot
J
Hi, phil112.
Had you bothered to read the context of Jesus' Words, then you would have known precisely whom Jesus was talking to. We read:
"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan. And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying," (Matthew 4:23-5:2)
That's who Jesus was talking to...THE GREAT MULTITUDES OF PEOPLE FROM GALILEE, AND FROM DECAPOLIS, AND FROM JERUSALEM, AND FROM JUDAEA, AND FROM BEYOND JORDAN. Contrary to what you stated, Jesus was talking to a lot more people than just "Jews in a covenant relationship with God". In fact, here is what the Bible dictionary has to say about "Decapolis" or the "ten cities":
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/view.cgi?n=1547
So much for your claim that Jesus was only speaking to "Jews in a covenant relationship with God".
As has already been explained to you, Jesus said the same exact things to you and me. I mean, after all, He did instruct His disciples in the following manner and they obeyed His instructions:
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, AND TEACH ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)
Jesus instructed His disciples to "Go ye INTO ALL THE WORLD" (Mark 16:15) and to "TEACH ALL NATIONS...TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU"...and they did just that. As such, to answer your question, "What did He have to say about it when He talked to you and me?", well, again, He said the same exact things to us as He said to them. After all, God is no respecter of persons.
Actually, God chose him and others to CONTINUE CHRIST'S MINISTRY ON EARTH...unless you somehow think that Christ's ministry was completed by the time of Paul's death.
I'm almost afraid to ask (because it will probably only expose more error on your part), but "the second half of" what "week"? Are you referring to Daniel's prophecy? I hope not.
How could he or anybody else possibly "know" this when it is erroneous?
I don't know where you're getting your supposed "knowledge" from, but it's apparently not from a proper handing of the Bible. Contrary to popular belief (because somebody tells a lie and then multitudes just believe the same without researching it for themselves), Paul did NOT "sit under Christ for 3 years while being taught by Him in Arabia". In fact, Paul began preaching "straightway" or "immediately" after he was baptized and his sight was restored to him. You're obviously getting your erroneous belief from a misreading/mishandling of the following:
Galatians chapter 1
[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
What was Paul doing the three years that he spent in Arabia or, more specifically, Damascus? Was he, as you suggested, "sitting under Christ and being taught by Him"? No, he was not. Instead, here's what he was actually doing:
Acts chapter 9
[1] And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
[2] And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
[3] And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
[4] And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
[6] And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
[7] And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
[8] And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
[10] And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
[11] And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
[12] And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
[13] Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
[14] And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
[15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
[16] For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
[17] And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
[18] And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
[19] And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
[20] And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
[21] But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
[22] But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
[23] And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:
[24] But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.
[25] Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.
[26] And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
[27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
[28] And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
When Jesus appeared unto Saul/Paul while he was on the road to Damascus, He told him to "Arise, and go into the city" (Acts 9:6) and such is precisely what Paul did. Yes, Paul "arose from the earth" and was "led by the hand and brought into Damascus" (Acts 9:8). After Ananias was sent unto him and he had received back his sight, he was baptized, and "when he had received meat, he was strengthened" (Acts 9:18-19). "THEN WAS SAUL CERTAIN DAYS WITH THE DISCIPLES WHICH WERE AT DAMASCUS AND STRAIGHTWAY" OR IMMEDIATELY "HE PREACHED CHRIST IN THE SYNAGOGUES, THAT HE IS THE SON OF GOD" (Acts 9:19-20). Got it? After this, "Saul increased the more in strength...AND AFTER THAT MANY DAYS WERE FULFILLED, the Jews took counsel to kill him" (Acts 9:22-23). How many "many days"? Well, THREE YEARS WORTH OF MANY DAYS...that's how many. Of course, Paul escaped the Jews' plot to kill him "AND WHEN SAUL WAS COME TO JERUSALEM...Barnabas took him AND BROUGHT HIM TO THE APOSTLES" (Acts 9:26-27). IOW, after Paul had PREACHED AT DAMASCUS FOR THREE YEARS, he went up to Jerusalem, just as he said he did in Galatians chapter 1, and that is when he saw both Peter and James after Barnabas had taken him to them.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not, so I'll wait for clarification before commenting too directly on what you stated here. I will say this, though...
The Gentiles were a part of God's plan of salvation long before Christ's resurrection, so if (I said "if"...I'm not sure what you're saying here) you're insinuating otherwise, then this is also error on your part. In fact (and it is a fact), all of the earliest believers in Christ (Abel, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, etc.) were GENTILES and not Jews. They had to be as there was no such thing as either a natural Israelite or Jew in existence during their lifetimes.
If I were you, sir, then I'd lay off of the accusations...especially since you're obviously the one who is guilty of the very thing which you accused "AVoice" of.
I actually went easy on you in this response, simply because you're older than me, but you really do need to simmer down and reread your Bible as you're obviously confused about a host of things.
Had you bothered to read the context of Jesus' Words, then you would have known precisely whom Jesus was talking to. We read:
"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan. And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying," (Matthew 4:23-5:2)
That's who Jesus was talking to...THE GREAT MULTITUDES OF PEOPLE FROM GALILEE, AND FROM DECAPOLIS, AND FROM JERUSALEM, AND FROM JUDAEA, AND FROM BEYOND JORDAN. Contrary to what you stated, Jesus was talking to a lot more people than just "Jews in a covenant relationship with God". In fact, here is what the Bible dictionary has to say about "Decapolis" or the "ten cities":
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/view.cgi?n=1547
So much for your claim that Jesus was only speaking to "Jews in a covenant relationship with God".
As has already been explained to you, Jesus said the same exact things to you and me. I mean, after all, He did instruct His disciples in the following manner and they obeyed His instructions:
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, AND TEACH ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)
Jesus instructed His disciples to "Go ye INTO ALL THE WORLD" (Mark 16:15) and to "TEACH ALL NATIONS...TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU"...and they did just that. As such, to answer your question, "What did He have to say about it when He talked to you and me?", well, again, He said the same exact things to us as He said to them. After all, God is no respecter of persons.
Actually, God chose him and others to CONTINUE CHRIST'S MINISTRY ON EARTH...unless you somehow think that Christ's ministry was completed by the time of Paul's death.
I'm almost afraid to ask (because it will probably only expose more error on your part), but "the second half of" what "week"? Are you referring to Daniel's prophecy? I hope not.
How could he or anybody else possibly "know" this when it is erroneous?
I don't know where you're getting your supposed "knowledge" from, but it's apparently not from a proper handing of the Bible. Contrary to popular belief (because somebody tells a lie and then multitudes just believe the same without researching it for themselves), Paul did NOT "sit under Christ for 3 years while being taught by Him in Arabia". In fact, Paul began preaching "straightway" or "immediately" after he was baptized and his sight was restored to him. You're obviously getting your erroneous belief from a misreading/mishandling of the following:
Galatians chapter 1
[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
What was Paul doing the three years that he spent in Arabia or, more specifically, Damascus? Was he, as you suggested, "sitting under Christ and being taught by Him"? No, he was not. Instead, here's what he was actually doing:
Acts chapter 9
[1] And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
[2] And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
[3] And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
[4] And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
[6] And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
[7] And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
[8] And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
[10] And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
[11] And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
[12] And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
[13] Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
[14] And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
[15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
[16] For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
[17] And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
[18] And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
[19] And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
[20] And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
[21] But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
[22] But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
[23] And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:
[24] But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.
[25] Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.
[26] And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
[27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
[28] And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
When Jesus appeared unto Saul/Paul while he was on the road to Damascus, He told him to "Arise, and go into the city" (Acts 9:6) and such is precisely what Paul did. Yes, Paul "arose from the earth" and was "led by the hand and brought into Damascus" (Acts 9:8). After Ananias was sent unto him and he had received back his sight, he was baptized, and "when he had received meat, he was strengthened" (Acts 9:18-19). "THEN WAS SAUL CERTAIN DAYS WITH THE DISCIPLES WHICH WERE AT DAMASCUS AND STRAIGHTWAY" OR IMMEDIATELY "HE PREACHED CHRIST IN THE SYNAGOGUES, THAT HE IS THE SON OF GOD" (Acts 9:19-20). Got it? After this, "Saul increased the more in strength...AND AFTER THAT MANY DAYS WERE FULFILLED, the Jews took counsel to kill him" (Acts 9:22-23). How many "many days"? Well, THREE YEARS WORTH OF MANY DAYS...that's how many. Of course, Paul escaped the Jews' plot to kill him "AND WHEN SAUL WAS COME TO JERUSALEM...Barnabas took him AND BROUGHT HIM TO THE APOSTLES" (Acts 9:26-27). IOW, after Paul had PREACHED AT DAMASCUS FOR THREE YEARS, he went up to Jerusalem, just as he said he did in Galatians chapter 1, and that is when he saw both Peter and James after Barnabas had taken him to them.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not, so I'll wait for clarification before commenting too directly on what you stated here. I will say this, though...
The Gentiles were a part of God's plan of salvation long before Christ's resurrection, so if (I said "if"...I'm not sure what you're saying here) you're insinuating otherwise, then this is also error on your part. In fact (and it is a fact), all of the earliest believers in Christ (Abel, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, etc.) were GENTILES and not Jews. They had to be as there was no such thing as either a natural Israelite or Jew in existence during their lifetimes.
If I were you, sir, then I'd lay off of the accusations...especially since you're obviously the one who is guilty of the very thing which you accused "AVoice" of.
I actually went easy on you in this response, simply because you're older than me, but you really do need to simmer down and reread your Bible as you're obviously confused about a host of things.
P
1. So you think that everything Christ said was to you and me. To believe that you must not believe Him. He specifically sent Paul to the gentile. Why do you disregard Paul's teaching? Why is that?
2. Your understanding of the scripture is sadly lacking. It is not related in chronological much of the time.
You went easy on me? You self absorbed person. You believe yourself to be an authority? It is easy to see why you dislike Paul. He had things to say people like you don't like to hear.
"For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself."
Clearly you fall into that category.
Christ talking to Paul: "And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles"
I am not going to sit here and quote or link all the scriptures that I have brought up already. People like you go out of your way to claim Matthew 5:32 is meant for you. You jump through hoops to try to prove it. To believe that you must believe the bible contradicts itself because Paul does not teach that. To believe that you have to give little or no authority to Paul's writings. When God says He picked Paul specifically for that job. Either your understanding, based on false doctrine taught for many years by shallow christians, is wrong, or the bible contradicts itself, and/or Paul is not to be believed. So you tell me: which is it?
You folks better quit chewing on the strong meat. It's going to choke you.
2. Your understanding of the scripture is sadly lacking. It is not related in chronological much of the time.
You went easy on me? You self absorbed person. You believe yourself to be an authority? It is easy to see why you dislike Paul. He had things to say people like you don't like to hear.
"For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself."
Clearly you fall into that category.
Christ talking to Paul: "And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles"
I am not going to sit here and quote or link all the scriptures that I have brought up already. People like you go out of your way to claim Matthew 5:32 is meant for you. You jump through hoops to try to prove it. To believe that you must believe the bible contradicts itself because Paul does not teach that. To believe that you have to give little or no authority to Paul's writings. When God says He picked Paul specifically for that job. Either your understanding, based on false doctrine taught for many years by shallow christians, is wrong, or the bible contradicts itself, and/or Paul is not to be believed. So you tell me: which is it?
You folks better quit chewing on the strong meat. It's going to choke you.
J
Hi, phil112.
I disregard neither Christ's teachings nor Paul's teachings and there's no contradiction between the two...even though you apparently believe and teach that there is. Yes, your failed, attempted projections of your own sins unto me aside, it is YOU who apparently disregards almost the entirety of the Bible while building your own house of cards upon your faulty misunderstanding of isolated verses. For example, you're obviously erroneously hung up on this whole "He sent Paul to the Gentiles" thing and if you didn't disregard the entirety of the Bible, then such would never be the case. Again, as I already sought to explain to you in my previous response to you, ALL OF THE EARLIEST BELIEVERS IN CHRIST WERE GENTILES. Yes, ALL OF THEM. You know, people like Abel who was actually cited as a GENTILE example of persevering faith to the Hebrew Christians (Hebrews 11:4), as were Enoch, Noah and, yes, even Abraham. Like it or not, Phil, each and every one of them were GENTILES as no such thing as either a natural Israelite or natural Jew was in existence during their lifetimes and such can easily be proven from scripture. I mean, consider Enoch for a moment. We have a prophecy of his right inside of our own New Testaments, don't we? You know what I'm referring to, don't you? I'm referring to the following:
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 14-15)
How did Enoch, A GENTILE, and the seventh from Adam, have the ability to prophesy of Jesus Christ's second coming? Well, he had said ability because, like all other Old Testament prophets, he had the Spirit of Christ IN HIM (I Peter 1:11). Who, do you suppose, were the first to hear Enoch's prophecy? Would it have been Israelites/Jews or Gentiles? Again, it would have been GENTILES because there were no Israelites or Jews even in existence during Enoch's lifetime.
What about Noah?
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;" (II Peter 2:4-5)
Noah was "a preacher of righteousness". Well, what do you suppose that THAT means? What type of "righteousness" was he "preaching" AND TO WHOM? Was he "preaching righteousness" according to the law? Well, that wasn't formally given until the other side of the flood or until long after Noah was dead. What type of "righteousness" was he "preaching" then and, again, TO WHOM? He was "preaching righteousness" which is by faith in Jesus Christ AND HE WAS PREACHING THE SAME TO GENTILES AS THERE WERE NO ISRAELITES OR JEWS IN EXISTENCE DURING NOAH'S LIFETIME.
Now, if you want to bury your head in the sand to such realities as these and continue to insist that the message of salvation to the Gentiles somehow began with the Apostle Paul, then you're willfully ignorant and a stubborn preacher/teacher of HERESY.
I could just as easily document how that Abraham WHOM PAUL CALLED (again, YOU are the one who doesn't believe Paul's writings and NOT me) "the father of all them that believe" (Romans 4:11) and "the father of us all" (Romans 4:16) was a GENTILE in that God didn't change Jacob's name to "Israel" until AFTER Abraham was dead and buried and in that Jacob's/Israel's fourth son, Judah, from whence we derive the word "Jew", similarly wasn't even born until AFTER Abraham was dead and buried.
I could also EASILY document how that God REGULARLY had His prophets PREACH TO GENTILE NATIONS, but I'll just fast forward to Christ's Own earthly ministry to further demonstrate your own ignorance. Before I do, however, a quick citation from Deuteronomy is in order:
"They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." (Deuteronomy 32:21)
That verse was part of the song which God had Moses teach to the second generation of Israelites before they entered into "the promised land". Yes, God told the children of Israel that He would "move them to jealousy with those which are not a people" and/or "provoke them to anger with a foolish nation". IOW, God would provoke the Israelites/Jews to jealousy with examples of GENTILE BELIEVERS AND FOLLOWERS OF JESUS CHRIST...and such is exactly what Jesus Christ regularly did during His Own earthly ministry. Here are some examples of the same:
Luke chapter 4
[16] And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
[17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
[19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
[20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
[21] And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
[22] And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
[23] And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
[24] And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
[25] But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
[26] But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
[27] And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
[28] And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
[29] And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
[30] But he passing through the midst of them went his way,
[31] And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.
Why did the people of Jesus' hometown of Nazareth get so incensed with Him to the point that they attempted to throw Him headfirst off of a hill/cliff? Well, they got incensed with Him BECAUSE HE COUNTERED THEIR ISRAELITE/JEWISH UNBELIEF WITH EXAMPLES OF GENTILE BELIEVERS LIKE THE WIDOW WOMAN OF SAREPTA, A SIDONITE, WHOM ELIJAH WAS SENT TO (AND HE WASN'T SENT TO ANY ISRAELITES/JEWS) AND THE SYRIAN NAAMAN WHO WAS CLEANSED AFTER FOLLOWING THE COUNSEL OF ELISHA. IOW, Jesus was "provoking Israelites/Jews to jealousy WITH ACCOUNTS OF GENTILE BELIEVERS"...just as God said that He would way back in Deuteronomy 32:21. Here's another example of the same:
Matthew chapter 12
[38] Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
[39] But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
[40] For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
[41] The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
[42] The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
Why did Jesus mention to these UNBELIEVING ISRAELITES/JEWS how that both "the men of Nineveh" and "the queen of the south" (the queen of Sheba) were going to "rise in judgment with this generation and condemn it"? BECAUSE BOTH "THE MEN OF NINEVEH" AND "THE QUEEN OF THE SOUTH" WERE GENTILES AND JESUS WAS "PROVOKING THE UNBELIEVING ISRAELITES/JEWS TO JEALOUSY WITH EXAMPLES OF BELIEVING GENTILES"...just as God said that He would way back in Deuteronomy 32:21.
Again, THERE WERE MULTITUDES OF GENTILE BELIEVERS LONG BEFORE THE APOSTLE PAUL WAS EVEN BORN, so if you want to stubbornly insist and teach that the Gentiles somehow weren't included until the Apostle Paul came along and taught them, then you are a heretic and you'll answer directly to God one day for the same. Also, if you want to get angry with me and falsely accuse me with more of own projected sins, then go right ahead. At my end, I'm trying to help you.
Just another one of your projections, Phil. In reality, it is your own understanding of scripture which is truly sadly lacking, even as I've begun to demonstrate and will continue to demonstrate that you might genuinely repent of your errors and embrace the truth. Even if you stubbornly refuse to do so, thereby being willfully ignorant, then I'll still continue to demonstrate the same so that others might not follow you in your present folly.
I've already clearly demonstrated for you and others how that Paul's mention of "three years" in Galatians 1:18 was directly in relation to the "three years" ("after that many days were fulfilled" - Acts 9:23) that Paul spent preaching boldly at Damascus and not in any way, shape or form even remotely related to your false allegation that "Paul spent three years sitting under Christ and being taught by Him", so I feel no need to rehash the same.
Yes, I did in that the entire Bible, from Genesis through Revelation, preaches AGAINST some of your presently held beliefs as you've stated them in this thread. In this post, I've just begun to document some of the same.
Yet another projection, Phil. Unlike you, I'm "absorbed" with CHRIST AND HIS RIGHTLY DIVIDED WORD. You, on the other hand, are the putter forth of strange doctrines which have either originated with yourself (self-absorbed) or, even worse, are what the Bible calls "doctrines of devils". Again, the GENTILES have ALWAYS had the gospel. For crying out loud, Phil, if you knew anything at all about Paul's writings, then you would know that ABRAHAM who was A GENTILE had the gospel preached unto Him:
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Galatians 3:8)
Not only did Abraham, A GENTILE, have "the gospel" preached unto him, but "the heathen" were saved LONG BEFORE the Apostle Paul was ever born and I've already cited you some examples of the same.
No, I believe JESUS CHRIST, THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, TO BE THE AUTHORITY...and your quarrel is with Him and His rightly divided Word.
I love Paul, you liar.
I love every word that Paul wrote/dictated, you liar. Contrariwise, as I've begun to document here in this post, it is YOU who "dislikes Paul" and who "doesn't like to hear" him. IOW, just more of your projections, Phil.
Your use of such words as "clearly" really is frightening. IOW, such words are only manifesting how delusional you apparently are as all of your allegations against both God's Word which you've been butchering and me are baseless.
And...???
As has been demonstrated for you here already, Phil, just about everybody and their grandmother similarly preached to the Gentiles all throughout Biblical history. Deal with it.
Again, the "hoop jumper" is YOU, Phil.
Anyhow, I'll further demonstrate the same in future posts.
I disregard neither Christ's teachings nor Paul's teachings and there's no contradiction between the two...even though you apparently believe and teach that there is. Yes, your failed, attempted projections of your own sins unto me aside, it is YOU who apparently disregards almost the entirety of the Bible while building your own house of cards upon your faulty misunderstanding of isolated verses. For example, you're obviously erroneously hung up on this whole "He sent Paul to the Gentiles" thing and if you didn't disregard the entirety of the Bible, then such would never be the case. Again, as I already sought to explain to you in my previous response to you, ALL OF THE EARLIEST BELIEVERS IN CHRIST WERE GENTILES. Yes, ALL OF THEM. You know, people like Abel who was actually cited as a GENTILE example of persevering faith to the Hebrew Christians (Hebrews 11:4), as were Enoch, Noah and, yes, even Abraham. Like it or not, Phil, each and every one of them were GENTILES as no such thing as either a natural Israelite or natural Jew was in existence during their lifetimes and such can easily be proven from scripture. I mean, consider Enoch for a moment. We have a prophecy of his right inside of our own New Testaments, don't we? You know what I'm referring to, don't you? I'm referring to the following:
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 14-15)
How did Enoch, A GENTILE, and the seventh from Adam, have the ability to prophesy of Jesus Christ's second coming? Well, he had said ability because, like all other Old Testament prophets, he had the Spirit of Christ IN HIM (I Peter 1:11). Who, do you suppose, were the first to hear Enoch's prophecy? Would it have been Israelites/Jews or Gentiles? Again, it would have been GENTILES because there were no Israelites or Jews even in existence during Enoch's lifetime.
What about Noah?
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;" (II Peter 2:4-5)
Noah was "a preacher of righteousness". Well, what do you suppose that THAT means? What type of "righteousness" was he "preaching" AND TO WHOM? Was he "preaching righteousness" according to the law? Well, that wasn't formally given until the other side of the flood or until long after Noah was dead. What type of "righteousness" was he "preaching" then and, again, TO WHOM? He was "preaching righteousness" which is by faith in Jesus Christ AND HE WAS PREACHING THE SAME TO GENTILES AS THERE WERE NO ISRAELITES OR JEWS IN EXISTENCE DURING NOAH'S LIFETIME.
Now, if you want to bury your head in the sand to such realities as these and continue to insist that the message of salvation to the Gentiles somehow began with the Apostle Paul, then you're willfully ignorant and a stubborn preacher/teacher of HERESY.
I could just as easily document how that Abraham WHOM PAUL CALLED (again, YOU are the one who doesn't believe Paul's writings and NOT me) "the father of all them that believe" (Romans 4:11) and "the father of us all" (Romans 4:16) was a GENTILE in that God didn't change Jacob's name to "Israel" until AFTER Abraham was dead and buried and in that Jacob's/Israel's fourth son, Judah, from whence we derive the word "Jew", similarly wasn't even born until AFTER Abraham was dead and buried.
I could also EASILY document how that God REGULARLY had His prophets PREACH TO GENTILE NATIONS, but I'll just fast forward to Christ's Own earthly ministry to further demonstrate your own ignorance. Before I do, however, a quick citation from Deuteronomy is in order:
"They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." (Deuteronomy 32:21)
That verse was part of the song which God had Moses teach to the second generation of Israelites before they entered into "the promised land". Yes, God told the children of Israel that He would "move them to jealousy with those which are not a people" and/or "provoke them to anger with a foolish nation". IOW, God would provoke the Israelites/Jews to jealousy with examples of GENTILE BELIEVERS AND FOLLOWERS OF JESUS CHRIST...and such is exactly what Jesus Christ regularly did during His Own earthly ministry. Here are some examples of the same:
Luke chapter 4
[16] And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
[17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
[19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
[20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
[21] And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
[22] And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
[23] And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
[24] And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
[25] But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
[26] But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
[27] And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
[28] And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
[29] And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
[30] But he passing through the midst of them went his way,
[31] And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.
Why did the people of Jesus' hometown of Nazareth get so incensed with Him to the point that they attempted to throw Him headfirst off of a hill/cliff? Well, they got incensed with Him BECAUSE HE COUNTERED THEIR ISRAELITE/JEWISH UNBELIEF WITH EXAMPLES OF GENTILE BELIEVERS LIKE THE WIDOW WOMAN OF SAREPTA, A SIDONITE, WHOM ELIJAH WAS SENT TO (AND HE WASN'T SENT TO ANY ISRAELITES/JEWS) AND THE SYRIAN NAAMAN WHO WAS CLEANSED AFTER FOLLOWING THE COUNSEL OF ELISHA. IOW, Jesus was "provoking Israelites/Jews to jealousy WITH ACCOUNTS OF GENTILE BELIEVERS"...just as God said that He would way back in Deuteronomy 32:21. Here's another example of the same:
Matthew chapter 12
[38] Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
[39] But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
[40] For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
[41] The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
[42] The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
Why did Jesus mention to these UNBELIEVING ISRAELITES/JEWS how that both "the men of Nineveh" and "the queen of the south" (the queen of Sheba) were going to "rise in judgment with this generation and condemn it"? BECAUSE BOTH "THE MEN OF NINEVEH" AND "THE QUEEN OF THE SOUTH" WERE GENTILES AND JESUS WAS "PROVOKING THE UNBELIEVING ISRAELITES/JEWS TO JEALOUSY WITH EXAMPLES OF BELIEVING GENTILES"...just as God said that He would way back in Deuteronomy 32:21.
Again, THERE WERE MULTITUDES OF GENTILE BELIEVERS LONG BEFORE THE APOSTLE PAUL WAS EVEN BORN, so if you want to stubbornly insist and teach that the Gentiles somehow weren't included until the Apostle Paul came along and taught them, then you are a heretic and you'll answer directly to God one day for the same. Also, if you want to get angry with me and falsely accuse me with more of own projected sins, then go right ahead. At my end, I'm trying to help you.
Just another one of your projections, Phil. In reality, it is your own understanding of scripture which is truly sadly lacking, even as I've begun to demonstrate and will continue to demonstrate that you might genuinely repent of your errors and embrace the truth. Even if you stubbornly refuse to do so, thereby being willfully ignorant, then I'll still continue to demonstrate the same so that others might not follow you in your present folly.
I've already clearly demonstrated for you and others how that Paul's mention of "three years" in Galatians 1:18 was directly in relation to the "three years" ("after that many days were fulfilled" - Acts 9:23) that Paul spent preaching boldly at Damascus and not in any way, shape or form even remotely related to your false allegation that "Paul spent three years sitting under Christ and being taught by Him", so I feel no need to rehash the same.
Yes, I did in that the entire Bible, from Genesis through Revelation, preaches AGAINST some of your presently held beliefs as you've stated them in this thread. In this post, I've just begun to document some of the same.
Yet another projection, Phil. Unlike you, I'm "absorbed" with CHRIST AND HIS RIGHTLY DIVIDED WORD. You, on the other hand, are the putter forth of strange doctrines which have either originated with yourself (self-absorbed) or, even worse, are what the Bible calls "doctrines of devils". Again, the GENTILES have ALWAYS had the gospel. For crying out loud, Phil, if you knew anything at all about Paul's writings, then you would know that ABRAHAM who was A GENTILE had the gospel preached unto Him:
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Galatians 3:8)
Not only did Abraham, A GENTILE, have "the gospel" preached unto him, but "the heathen" were saved LONG BEFORE the Apostle Paul was ever born and I've already cited you some examples of the same.
No, I believe JESUS CHRIST, THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, TO BE THE AUTHORITY...and your quarrel is with Him and His rightly divided Word.
I love Paul, you liar.
I love every word that Paul wrote/dictated, you liar. Contrariwise, as I've begun to document here in this post, it is YOU who "dislikes Paul" and who "doesn't like to hear" him. IOW, just more of your projections, Phil.
Your use of such words as "clearly" really is frightening. IOW, such words are only manifesting how delusional you apparently are as all of your allegations against both God's Word which you've been butchering and me are baseless.
And...???
As has been demonstrated for you here already, Phil, just about everybody and their grandmother similarly preached to the Gentiles all throughout Biblical history. Deal with it.
Again, the "hoop jumper" is YOU, Phil.
Anyhow, I'll further demonstrate the same in future posts.
J
I have some questions for those participating in this thread (or for those who are viewing it and haven't yet participated) who seek to differentiate between Israelites/Jews and Gentiles as if there are different standards which apply to different groups of people in relation to adultery. Here we go:
Genesis chapter 12
[10] And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
[11] And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:
[12] Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.
[13] Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
[14] And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
[15] The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
[16] And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
[17] And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
[18] And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
[19] Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
[20] And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.
What was THAT all about?
I mean, here we've got Abram and Sarai, BOTH GENTILES, and Pharaoh, ANOTHER GENTILE, right?
Well, why did God "plague Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife"?
Was it not in relation to potential ADULTERY in that Pharaoh took another man's wife while her husband was yet alive?
And what about this:
Genesis chapter 20
[1] And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.
[2] And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
[3] But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
[4] But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
[5] Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
[6] And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
[7] Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.
[8] Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.
[9] Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.
[10] And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?
[11] And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.
[12] And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
[13] And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.
[14] And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife.
[15] And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee.
[16] And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.
[17] So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children.
[18] For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.
???
Isn't this the same scenario?
I mean, once again, we've got Abraham and Sarah, BOTH GENTILES, and Abimelech, king of Gerar, himself A GENTILE, and God not only tells Abimelech that He's going to KILL HIM AND ALL THAT ARE HIS if he doesn't return another man's wife back to him, but He also closes up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech BECAUSE OF ABRAHAM'S WIFE.
Yes, even Abimelech acknowledged that he had been deceived into potentially committing "A GREAT SIN" (Genesis 20:9)
Folks, they were all GENTILES and this was also pre-law (of Moses).
Again, the "one flesh" union between a man and his wife was ordained by God way back in Genesis chapter 2 while there were yet only two people, Adam and Eve, BOTH GENTILES (unless anybody here wants to attempt to prove that they were Israelites/Jews...good luck with that), upon the face of the earth, so this whole, "Well, that doesn't apply to me because I'm not a Jew" and "Well, that doesn't apply to me because Paul was the teacher of the Gentiles" nonsense is just that:
NONSENSE!
Speaking of GENTILES, why was John the Baptist beheaded (I'm not saying that John the Baptist was a Gentile, but rather asking why A GENTILE, Herod, had him beheaded)? Well, there's no need to guess:
Mark chapter 6
[14] And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad): and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
[15] Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
[16] But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.
[17] For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
[18] For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.
[19] Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not:
[20] For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.
[21] And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee;
[22] And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.
[23] And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom.
[24] And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptist.
[25] And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist.
[26] And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her.
[27] And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,
[28] And brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel gave it to her mother.
[29] And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.
John the Baptist told king Herod who was an IDUMEAN or an EDOMITE (IOW, he was a NON-JEW) that "It is NOT LAWFUL for thee to have thy brother's wife" (Mark 6:18) and the same ultimately led to his beheading.
Now wait a minute...
What the heck was John the Baptist doing PREACING THE LAW TO A GENTILE?
Well, contrary to commonplace erroneous opinions of many a professing Christian nowadays, God's laws in relation to adultery (and a whole host of other things, too) ALWAYS applied to GENTILES as much as they applied to Israelites/Jews. In fact, the latter (Israelites/Jews) were supposed to be teaching the same to the former (the GENTILES) and people like John the Baptist and Jesus Christ REGULARLY DID...as did all of the prophets who came before them.
Anyhow, it wasn't "lawful" for Herod to take his brother Philip's wife BECAUSE HIS BROTHER PHILIP WAS STILL ALIVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND THIS ACT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED ADULTERY.
Let's all keep these things in mind as we go forward with this discussion, okay?
Genesis chapter 12
[10] And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
[11] And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:
[12] Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.
[13] Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
[14] And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
[15] The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
[16] And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
[17] And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
[18] And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
[19] Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
[20] And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.
What was THAT all about?
I mean, here we've got Abram and Sarai, BOTH GENTILES, and Pharaoh, ANOTHER GENTILE, right?
Well, why did God "plague Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife"?
Was it not in relation to potential ADULTERY in that Pharaoh took another man's wife while her husband was yet alive?
And what about this:
Genesis chapter 20
[1] And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.
[2] And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
[3] But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
[4] But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
[5] Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
[6] And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
[7] Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.
[8] Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.
[9] Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.
[10] And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?
[11] And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.
[12] And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
[13] And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.
[14] And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife.
[15] And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee.
[16] And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.
[17] So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children.
[18] For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.
???
Isn't this the same scenario?
I mean, once again, we've got Abraham and Sarah, BOTH GENTILES, and Abimelech, king of Gerar, himself A GENTILE, and God not only tells Abimelech that He's going to KILL HIM AND ALL THAT ARE HIS if he doesn't return another man's wife back to him, but He also closes up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech BECAUSE OF ABRAHAM'S WIFE.
Yes, even Abimelech acknowledged that he had been deceived into potentially committing "A GREAT SIN" (Genesis 20:9)
Folks, they were all GENTILES and this was also pre-law (of Moses).
Again, the "one flesh" union between a man and his wife was ordained by God way back in Genesis chapter 2 while there were yet only two people, Adam and Eve, BOTH GENTILES (unless anybody here wants to attempt to prove that they were Israelites/Jews...good luck with that), upon the face of the earth, so this whole, "Well, that doesn't apply to me because I'm not a Jew" and "Well, that doesn't apply to me because Paul was the teacher of the Gentiles" nonsense is just that:
NONSENSE!
Speaking of GENTILES, why was John the Baptist beheaded (I'm not saying that John the Baptist was a Gentile, but rather asking why A GENTILE, Herod, had him beheaded)? Well, there's no need to guess:
Mark chapter 6
[14] And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad): and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
[15] Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
[16] But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.
[17] For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
[18] For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.
[19] Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not:
[20] For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.
[21] And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee;
[22] And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.
[23] And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom.
[24] And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptist.
[25] And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist.
[26] And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her.
[27] And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,
[28] And brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel gave it to her mother.
[29] And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.
John the Baptist told king Herod who was an IDUMEAN or an EDOMITE (IOW, he was a NON-JEW) that "It is NOT LAWFUL for thee to have thy brother's wife" (Mark 6:18) and the same ultimately led to his beheading.
Now wait a minute...
What the heck was John the Baptist doing PREACING THE LAW TO A GENTILE?
Well, contrary to commonplace erroneous opinions of many a professing Christian nowadays, God's laws in relation to adultery (and a whole host of other things, too) ALWAYS applied to GENTILES as much as they applied to Israelites/Jews. In fact, the latter (Israelites/Jews) were supposed to be teaching the same to the former (the GENTILES) and people like John the Baptist and Jesus Christ REGULARLY DID...as did all of the prophets who came before them.
Anyhow, it wasn't "lawful" for Herod to take his brother Philip's wife BECAUSE HIS BROTHER PHILIP WAS STILL ALIVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND THIS ACT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED ADULTERY.
Let's all keep these things in mind as we go forward with this discussion, okay?
J
Hi, SeaBass.
Do you HONESTLY believe that Jesus Christ Who is "the Word" doesn't know the proper meanings and usages of words?
I mean, why did He use different words in the following verses if He was talking about one and selfsame thing?
Matthew chapter 15
[15] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
[16] And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
[17] Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
[18] But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
[19] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[20] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
"Adulteries" ("moicheia" in the underlying Greek) and "fornications" ("porneia" in the underlying Greek) are NOT one and the selfsame thing or else Jesus wouldn't have DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THE TWO.
Like Jesus, Paul (there's perfect harmony between Jesus' words and Paul's words) DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THE TWO as well:
Galatians chapter 5
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Once more, it's the same two underlying Greek words, "moicheia" (here translated as "adultery") and "porneia" (here translated as "fornication") and they are CLEARLY NOT ONE AND THE SELFSAME THING.
Keep this truth in mind as you consider what Jesus said in relation to "the exception clause" where He twice used TWO DIFFERENT UNDERLYING WORDS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS:
Matthew chapter 5
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Again:
Matthew chapter 19
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
[8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
[9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
[10] His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
[11] But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
[12] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Yes, again, there are TWO DIFFERENT UNDERLYING GREEK WORDS which are in these passages translated as "fornication" and "adultery" and the reason for the same ought to be obvious to all. In fact, Jesus' disciples apparently understood EXACTLY what He was saying because they responded to His teaching with, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry". IOW, Jesus' disciples perfectly understood that Jesus was teaching the INDISSOLUBLENESS OF MARRIAGE or that those who have become "one flesh" are "NO MORE TWAIN" or "NO MORE TWO". IOW, it was "until death do we part"...AND IT STILL IS!
Do you HONESTLY believe that Jesus Christ Who is "the Word" doesn't know the proper meanings and usages of words?
I mean, why did He use different words in the following verses if He was talking about one and selfsame thing?
Matthew chapter 15
[15] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
[16] And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
[17] Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
[18] But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
[19] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[20] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
"Adulteries" ("moicheia" in the underlying Greek) and "fornications" ("porneia" in the underlying Greek) are NOT one and the selfsame thing or else Jesus wouldn't have DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THE TWO.
Like Jesus, Paul (there's perfect harmony between Jesus' words and Paul's words) DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THE TWO as well:
Galatians chapter 5
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Once more, it's the same two underlying Greek words, "moicheia" (here translated as "adultery") and "porneia" (here translated as "fornication") and they are CLEARLY NOT ONE AND THE SELFSAME THING.
Keep this truth in mind as you consider what Jesus said in relation to "the exception clause" where He twice used TWO DIFFERENT UNDERLYING WORDS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS:
Matthew chapter 5
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Again:
Matthew chapter 19
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
[8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
[9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
[10] His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
[11] But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
[12] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Yes, again, there are TWO DIFFERENT UNDERLYING GREEK WORDS which are in these passages translated as "fornication" and "adultery" and the reason for the same ought to be obvious to all. In fact, Jesus' disciples apparently understood EXACTLY what He was saying because they responded to His teaching with, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry". IOW, Jesus' disciples perfectly understood that Jesus was teaching the INDISSOLUBLENESS OF MARRIAGE or that those who have become "one flesh" are "NO MORE TWAIN" or "NO MORE TWO". IOW, it was "until death do we part"...AND IT STILL IS!
Strongs defines porneia as
illicit sexual intercourse
illicit sexual intercourse
- adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
- sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
- sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
So adultery can be fornication but not all fornication is adultery.
Mt 15:9 would exclude "adultery" while "fornication" would also exclude homosexuality, beastiality etc.
Last edited:
A
The word fornication has more than one definition. It also has the definition of pinpointing the exclusive premarital sexual sin. In some contexts it is obvious that its sole purpose is to identify that particular sin since one of its definitions is for that.
So in Matt 5:32 and 19:9 we have the word fornication and fornication CAN in some contexts mean exclusively the premarital sexual sin. But hardly anyone explores whether or not that will work in those verses. But there is very good reason to at least give it a try since when "fornication" is assumed to mean adultery the verses contradict themselves and each other as well as contradicting the other 4 main verses on the topic in the NT. But when a solution is sought to resolve the dilemma and a means whereby the premarital definition of fornication can work, then lo and behold, it is discovered that a practical explanation exists. The other 4 main NT references on the topic are also literally reinforced thereby.
Just look at Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3. Those are allowed to mean very literally EXACTLY as they appear to mean when the 'divorce in betrothal' explanation is embraced as what the exception clause identifies.
So in Matt 5:32 and 19:9 we have the word fornication and fornication CAN in some contexts mean exclusively the premarital sexual sin. But hardly anyone explores whether or not that will work in those verses. But there is very good reason to at least give it a try since when "fornication" is assumed to mean adultery the verses contradict themselves and each other as well as contradicting the other 4 main verses on the topic in the NT. But when a solution is sought to resolve the dilemma and a means whereby the premarital definition of fornication can work, then lo and behold, it is discovered that a practical explanation exists. The other 4 main NT references on the topic are also literally reinforced thereby.
Just look at Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3. Those are allowed to mean very literally EXACTLY as they appear to mean when the 'divorce in betrothal' explanation is embraced as what the exception clause identifies.
A
In other words the word fornication can mean exclusively the premarital sexual offence if the context where it is used accommodates that. Due to their strange-to-us premarital divorce done for fornication (premarital sex) not for adultery, the exclusive premarital definition works in that context of both verses in Matthew.
Since adultery is a specific type of sexual sin identifying what violates a marriage, fornication, when listed alongside adultery naturally takes on its premarital definition since that is also a specific type and commonly committed sexual sin.
The words fornication and adultery can overlap but only to a point. When two single people are having sex, then the word adultery is wholly inappropriate to use to identify their sin.
So the word fornication can be very liberally applied to sexual sin including adultery or it can be very strictly used to identify exclusively the premarital sexual sin.
Since the texts in Matt 5 and 19 are very convoluted when fornication is assumed to mean a sexual violation of an existing marriage (adultery), then the practical thing to do is try the exclusive definition of fornication and see if it can somehow work.
It works as is demonstrated by the challenge this thread presents. The other 4 main NT references are reinforced by that understanding.
Since adultery is a specific type of sexual sin identifying what violates a marriage, fornication, when listed alongside adultery naturally takes on its premarital definition since that is also a specific type and commonly committed sexual sin.
The words fornication and adultery can overlap but only to a point. When two single people are having sex, then the word adultery is wholly inappropriate to use to identify their sin.
So the word fornication can be very liberally applied to sexual sin including adultery or it can be very strictly used to identify exclusively the premarital sexual sin.
Since the texts in Matt 5 and 19 are very convoluted when fornication is assumed to mean a sexual violation of an existing marriage (adultery), then the practical thing to do is try the exclusive definition of fornication and see if it can somehow work.
It works as is demonstrated by the challenge this thread presents. The other 4 main NT references are reinforced by that understanding.
Not going behyond the title of this thread, and from the title I see an invitation to judge others. We are not to judge others lest we be judged. Any judgment pronounced on others becomes a sin for the judge.
Any who believe Jesus Christ know divorce and adultery are not advocated anywhere in the Word except for the allowing of a writ of divorce in the law, but this was to demonstratat the hardness of the hearts of man.
In my immediate family there are over a dozen divorces, children born out of wedlock, and more. I love every member of my family, and no one is going to challenge me to judge any of them to damnation by any so-called challenge. Now, if I, a mere piece of ambulatory flesh love these folks, my folks such, it is not difficult to understand the Author of Love Who is Love will receive them all into HIs Kingdom with open arms.
Please do not post asking people to be challenged by making judgments, sweeping judgments when our Lord is there to forgive us all. He is returning soon, and my prayer is all of us do deverything possible to be ready to greet Him in the sky. After all, this is what we will do. God blee you, and all in Jesus Christ. Do not judge, and do not provoke others into such an act.
Any who believe Jesus Christ know divorce and adultery are not advocated anywhere in the Word except for the allowing of a writ of divorce in the law, but this was to demonstratat the hardness of the hearts of man.
In my immediate family there are over a dozen divorces, children born out of wedlock, and more. I love every member of my family, and no one is going to challenge me to judge any of them to damnation by any so-called challenge. Now, if I, a mere piece of ambulatory flesh love these folks, my folks such, it is not difficult to understand the Author of Love Who is Love will receive them all into HIs Kingdom with open arms.
Please do not post asking people to be challenged by making judgments, sweeping judgments when our Lord is there to forgive us all. He is returning soon, and my prayer is all of us do deverything possible to be ready to greet Him in the sky. After all, this is what we will do. God blee you, and all in Jesus Christ. Do not judge, and do not provoke others into such an act.
J
Hi, SeaBass.
I'm sorry, but I really don't know what it is that you're trying to say here...especially since Matthew 15:9 has nothing to do with this topic. I'm assuming that that was a typo and that you meant either Matthew 15:19 or Matthew 19:9, but, even then, I'm not sure what you meant in relation to certain sins being "excluded"? In any case, I have another question for everybody:
Matthew chapter 5
[27] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
[28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
[29] And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[30] And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Immediately before uttering what is commonly called "the exception clause", Jesus defined "adultery" by signifying that it need not be the outward physical act, but merely the "lust" or "desire" to commit the act within one's heart. With such being the case, my question for those who would seek to insist or imply that the "fornication" spoken of in "the exception clause" INCLUDES "adultery" is this:
Do you believe that Jesus was teaching that a woman could divorce her husband if he simply looked lustfully at another woman, thereby committing "adultery" in his heart?
Similarly, do you believe that Jesus was teaching that a man could divorce his wife if she simply looked lustfully at another man, thereby committing "adultery" in her heart?
To me, even the thought of the same is ludicrous, but I'd certainly like to hear from those who might possibly believe the same.
Thanks.
I'm sorry, but I really don't know what it is that you're trying to say here...especially since Matthew 15:9 has nothing to do with this topic. I'm assuming that that was a typo and that you meant either Matthew 15:19 or Matthew 19:9, but, even then, I'm not sure what you meant in relation to certain sins being "excluded"? In any case, I have another question for everybody:
Matthew chapter 5
[27] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
[28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
[29] And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[30] And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Immediately before uttering what is commonly called "the exception clause", Jesus defined "adultery" by signifying that it need not be the outward physical act, but merely the "lust" or "desire" to commit the act within one's heart. With such being the case, my question for those who would seek to insist or imply that the "fornication" spoken of in "the exception clause" INCLUDES "adultery" is this:
Do you believe that Jesus was teaching that a woman could divorce her husband if he simply looked lustfully at another woman, thereby committing "adultery" in his heart?
Similarly, do you believe that Jesus was teaching that a man could divorce his wife if she simply looked lustfully at another man, thereby committing "adultery" in her heart?
To me, even the thought of the same is ludicrous, but I'd certainly like to hear from those who might possibly believe the same.
Thanks.
I am failing to see what your saying here.
In Mt 5:32, is a situation where the husband put away his wife for a reason other than fornication (adultery, homosexuality, beastiality etc). The husband is the guilty one that broke the marriage covenant, not the wife. By the husband wrongly putting away the innocent wife, the husband (passively) causes the wife to commit adultery. The husband does not cause her to commit the physical act of adultery but puts the stigma upon her as being an adulteress for it would be assumed the husband put her away for committing adultery against him (Hendrikson) [According to Arndt & Gingrich the husband causing her to commit adultery means by the husband wrongly putting away the innocent wife, it causes the wife to commit adultery if she remarry.]
In Mt 5:32, is a situation where the husband put away his wife for a reason other than fornication (adultery, homosexuality, beastiality etc). The husband is the guilty one that broke the marriage covenant, not the wife. By the husband wrongly putting away the innocent wife, the husband (passively) causes the wife to commit adultery. The husband does not cause her to commit the physical act of adultery but puts the stigma upon her as being an adulteress for it would be assumed the husband put her away for committing adultery against him (Hendrikson) [According to Arndt & Gingrich the husband causing her to commit adultery means by the husband wrongly putting away the innocent wife, it causes the wife to commit adultery if she remarry.]
Hi,
I think adultery for divorce means the physical act itself. When one lusts, adultery is "committed" in the mind not the physical body. I do not think Jesus is saying physical adultery is the same as mental adultery but was making a point to the Jews about the OT law. Under the OT law just the physical act counted as sin not the mental. Yet under Christ's NT law BOTH the physical and mental count as sin though both are not the same. Jesus' point is sin originates in the heart (mental) and can lead to the physical act, but both are sins but not the same sin.
If a husband saw his wife looking at another man, how would that husband know if his wife was lusting after that man in her heart? Can a husband divorce his wife for just looking at another man? No. The husband must somehow know his wife was lusting in her heart but how can the husband ever know that with certainty enough to divorce her?
If a wife caught her husband watching pornography, can she divorce him? Can she know what's in his heart?
With the physical act of "physical" adultery there is certainty but there can be doubt and subjective judgments made with "mental" adultery not knowing what is in another person's heart, only God knows what in a person's heart.
I think adultery for divorce means the physical act itself. When one lusts, adultery is "committed" in the mind not the physical body. I do not think Jesus is saying physical adultery is the same as mental adultery but was making a point to the Jews about the OT law. Under the OT law just the physical act counted as sin not the mental. Yet under Christ's NT law BOTH the physical and mental count as sin though both are not the same. Jesus' point is sin originates in the heart (mental) and can lead to the physical act, but both are sins but not the same sin.
If a husband saw his wife looking at another man, how would that husband know if his wife was lusting after that man in her heart? Can a husband divorce his wife for just looking at another man? No. The husband must somehow know his wife was lusting in her heart but how can the husband ever know that with certainty enough to divorce her?
If a wife caught her husband watching pornography, can she divorce him? Can she know what's in his heart?
With the physical act of "physical" adultery there is certainty but there can be doubt and subjective judgments made with "mental" adultery not knowing what is in another person's heart, only God knows what in a person's heart.
J
Hi, SeaBass.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question, but I totally disagree with your response.
IOW, I fully believe that we CAN KNOW what is in another person's heart and I also believe that Jesus plainly taught the same as recorded in passages of scripture such as the following ones:
Matthew chapter 12
[33] Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
[34] O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
[35] A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
[36] But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
[37] For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Again:
Matthew chapter 15
[15] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
[16] And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
[17] Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
[18] But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
[19] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[20] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
According to Jesus Christ, both adulteries and fornications "proceed" or "come forth from the heart", thereby making it obvious to those who observe the same what is truly in the hearts of the perpetrators of such offenses. Yes, we can "know a tree by its fruit". Again, seeing how Jesus said that lust in the heart constitutes adultery, can a husband or wife rightfully divorce their spouse in God's sight simply because they have committed the same offense? Let's not kid ourselves here, btw. IOW, we've all seen men and women drooling over members of the opposite sex who weren't their spouses, thereby exposing what is in their hearts, so in such instances, is this legal ground for divorce in God's sight according to the beliefs/interpretations of some of you in relation to Jesus' used of the word "fornication" in "the exception clause" allegedly including the sin of adultery?
Again, to me, even the thought of such is simply ludicrous.
Anyhow, later on, I'll address, from scripture, what I believe "the exception clause" to really be all about.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question, but I totally disagree with your response.
IOW, I fully believe that we CAN KNOW what is in another person's heart and I also believe that Jesus plainly taught the same as recorded in passages of scripture such as the following ones:
Matthew chapter 12
[33] Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
[34] O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
[35] A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
[36] But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
[37] For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Again:
Matthew chapter 15
[15] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
[16] And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
[17] Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
[18] But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
[19] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[20] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
According to Jesus Christ, both adulteries and fornications "proceed" or "come forth from the heart", thereby making it obvious to those who observe the same what is truly in the hearts of the perpetrators of such offenses. Yes, we can "know a tree by its fruit". Again, seeing how Jesus said that lust in the heart constitutes adultery, can a husband or wife rightfully divorce their spouse in God's sight simply because they have committed the same offense? Let's not kid ourselves here, btw. IOW, we've all seen men and women drooling over members of the opposite sex who weren't their spouses, thereby exposing what is in their hearts, so in such instances, is this legal ground for divorce in God's sight according to the beliefs/interpretations of some of you in relation to Jesus' used of the word "fornication" in "the exception clause" allegedly including the sin of adultery?
Again, to me, even the thought of such is simply ludicrous.
Anyhow, later on, I'll address, from scripture, what I believe "the exception clause" to really be all about.
Last edited:
The way I see it, Jesus never authorized divorce for adultery, he only authorized divorce for fornication, I see fornication something only a married person can do, it is sexual contact with a person other than your spouse, if your not married and you have sexual contact with a married person, you commit adultery, the one you were with commits fornication...
Jesus basically said, if you divorce for anything but fornication, you are technically not divorced, so if either of them remarry, they cause the one they are remarried to (assuming the one they remarry never had been married, or divorced because their spouse DID commit fornication), to commit adultery, but they themselves continue to commit fornication.
Jesus basically said, if you divorce for anything but fornication, you are technically not divorced, so if either of them remarry, they cause the one they are remarried to (assuming the one they remarry never had been married, or divorced because their spouse DID commit fornication), to commit adultery, but they themselves continue to commit fornication.
A
Mistakes are often found in these kinds of reference materials.
The fact that in at least 3 places in the NT fornication is listed alongside adultery is evidence in itself that there is substantial difference between the two words. Adultery is exclusively the sexual sin that violates marriage. Fornication can be used in some sentences to include adultery but it also has a specific definition identifying exclusively the premarital sexual sin. Consider the words 'thieves' and 'extortioner's. These pair of NT words function similarly to a point as do the words fornication and adultery. All extortion is a form of theft but not all theft is extortion. [All adultery is fornication but not all fornication is adultery.] Taking that we agree that theft is the dishonest taking into possession of something that in reality belongs to someone else. 'Theft' can be used generally to include all forms of theft, including extortion, while it may also be used to identify the specific kind of theft done secretly behind another person's back.