Bible Study Defining Biblical Terms

[th1b.taylor]

What Jesus pretty obviously taught is found in Mark 10:1-12, Mark being widely acknowledged as the earliest gospel.

When Matthew's gospel was written, with an emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT for the benefit of a Jewish audience, the author inserted the "except for sexual immorality" exception in Matthew 19:3-12 to make Jesus' harsh teaching more palatable.

It is highly unlikely that Jesus, who did not deal in loopholes, paused in the middle of a profound statement on the permanency of what God has joined together to parenthetically insert "Oh, except, of course, unless she's messing around."

To read the commentaries that attempt to reconcile these two versions is to witness theological tap-dancing to a comical extreme.

I recently heard a very learned English Bible scholar assert - on American Family Radio, no less! - that all Jesus was really addressing was the Pharisees' system of no-fault divorce, whereby a man could simply give his wife a certificate of divorce for any reason or no reason. According to this "scholar," as long as you have "a reason," divorce is perfectly biblical. How enlightened! How very 21st Century! How convenient!

That is such a dangerous assertion to make.sprinkled throughout scripture God has warned us not to add nor to remove any word from His Word. There maybe more instances but the ones recall are Duet. 4:2, Duet 12:32, Pro. 30:6 and Rev. 22:18. Many Liberal Christians, total oxymoron, tend to look at Deuteronomy and The Revelation of Jesus and incorrectly decide that these warnings are only about these books but the facts are that God did not have a Highlighter, throughout History, however He did highlight certain thoughts the people might otherwise tend to ignore. When God bothers to repeat a command, He has emphasized or highlighted it and what I see is after the highlighter, each time He bothers to say it elsewhere He is taking a strong black Ink pen and drawing lines under what He really wants.

In this case, God has highlighted this Command and has drawn a double line, at least under the command and with the last instance, included a curse for the Liberal that will test God. Testing God is a fatal endeavor!

 

[th1b.taylor]

but I--I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.

(Matthew 5:32 [YLT])

 

[GodsGrace]

What Jesus pretty obviously taught is found in Mark 10:1-12, Mark being widely acknowledged as the earliest gospel.

When Matthew's gospel was written, with an emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT for the benefit of a Jewish audience, the author inserted the "except for sexual immorality" exception in Matthew 19:3-12 to make Jesus' harsh teaching more palatable.

It is highly unlikely that Jesus, who did not deal in loopholes, paused in the middle of a profound statement on the permanency of what God has joined together to parenthetically insert "Oh, except, of course, unless she's messing around."

To read the commentaries that attempt to reconcile these two versions is to witness theological tap-dancing to a comical extreme.

I recently heard a very learned English Bible scholar assert - on American Family Radio, no less! - that all Jesus was really addressing was the Pharisees' system of no-fault divorce, whereby a man could simply give his wife a certificate of divorce for any reason or no reason. According to this "scholar," as long as you have "a reason," divorce is perfectly biblical. How enlightened! How very 21st Century! How convenient!

As you know, I was Catholic and the CC just not adhere to the exception.
They do, however, have other reasons that one may ask for a divorce which are not even listed in the bible. Then there's annulment, but that's different.

I just think you've made an interesting point which I've never heard before in Protestantism. The exception is accepted.

 

[eddif]

Ugghh. Re Exodus.
OK re the wedding garment.
You don't need any, re the "help".

I was the one asking for help.
I should have said “I need help”.

And, actually, since you might understand pierced ears, thought you might see other symbols.

eddif

 

[GodsGrace]

I was the one asking for help.
I should have said “I need help”.

And, actually, since you might understand pierced ears, thought you might see other symbols.

eddif

I have pierced ears, but do I understand them?
Cultural.
Vanity full.
Both.
Oh. and Different full.
Some just like to be different. Except now everyone has them so it's not different anymore. Interesting.

As to other symbols....No. You see more than I ever will.

 

[eddif]

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:31-34

• Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

The definition of inherit the kingdom of God as Jesus used this term, refers to having a part in, having been granted access to or being allowed to enter the kingdom of God, on the Day of Judgement.


Not inheriting the kingdom of God means:
Not having any part in the KIngdom of God.
Not granted entrance into the kingdom of God. Cast into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

• “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41

JLB

If we keep going we may get to the right place.

Matthew 22:12 KJV
And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

So this wedding thing streatches a long way.
Sorting out symbols and reality.

Not good to be alone
Presentation of relationships
Announcement of coming wedding
Oil in lamp to wait (renewed)
Kingdom where new oil is found
Wedding garment ready
Marriage supper
Meeting the bridegroom
Wedding chamber


Types shadows:
The Bridegroom
Multiple wives
Good wife
Bad wife
No wife
Betrothed
Song of Solomon

All to transcend kingdoms and populate heaven. How did this ever get started? JLB are you going to get through all these words and phrases in a lifetime?

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[JLB]

All to transcend kingdoms and populate heaven. How did this ever get started? JLB are you going to get through all these words and phrases in a lifetime?

Mississippi redneck
eddif

The right place is truth.

The definition of inherit the Kingdom of God as used by Jesus.

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34

• These on the right hand were declared to be blessed, and were welcome to enter the kingdom of God.

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41

• These on the left hand were judged and found to be cursed, in which they were not welcome to enter the kingdom of God.

Instead they sentenced to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.


Inherit the kingdom of God = Welcome to enter the kingdom of God, on the Day of Judgement.


Do not inherit the kingdom of God =
Sentenced to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, on the Day of Judgement.


JLB

 

[Runner]

but I--I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.

(Matthew 5:32 [YLT])

Then, of course, we have Luke 16:18 (NASB): "“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Not to mention Paul speaking in the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (NASB): "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."

Matthew 5:22 has Jesus interrupting his Sermon On the Mount, which is not noted for loopholes, to insert the same exception found in Matthew 19 and nowhere else. Paul, writing before any of the gospels, was unaware of this exception. The author of Mark, the first gospel, was unaware of this exception. Luke, whom most scholars believe had both Mark and Matthew, went with Mark. Someone "added to" or "subtracted from" something.

When God really wants to emphasize something, apparently, he only puts it in Matthew's gospel? (You do realize, of course, that Matthew is phrased solely in terms of the husband divorcing the wife because, under Jewish law, the wife COULD NOT divorce the husband. The best she could do was persuade the rabbinical council to convince the husband that he should divorce her.)

Lest there be any confusion, the position that you regard as dangerously unbiblical and characterize as Liberal is:

• A marriage is the God-instituted union of a man and a woman whereby they become one flesh (Genesis 2:24), and this union may be broken only by death.

The position that you regard as biblical is:

• A marriage is the God-instituted union of a man and a woman whereby they become one flesh, and this union may be broken only by death or unchastity.

You can read the NT this way, of course. It seems to me an unlikely reading in light of what Genesis says a marriage is, Jesus, who was not a "loophole" sort of guy, was contrasting the sanctity of the marital union with what had formerly been allowed due to the hardness of the Jews' hearts, so the notion of him inserting a Mack Truck-sized "unchastity" loophole in the middle of the discussion strikes me as highly unlikely. For the author of Matthew to have inserted this loophole to please his male-dominant, patriarchal Jewish audience does not strike me as unlikely at all.

 

[GodsGrace]

Then, of course, we have Luke 16:18 (NASB): "“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Not to mention Paul speaking in the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (NASB): "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."

Matthew 5:22 has Jesus interrupting his Sermon On the Mount, which is not noted for loopholes, to insert the same exception found in Matthew 19 and nowhere else. Paul, writing before any of the gospels, was unaware of this exception. The author of Mark, the first gospel, was unaware of this exception. Luke, whom most scholars believe had both Mark and Matthew, went with Mark. Someone "added to" or "subtracted from" something.

When God really wants to emphasize something, apparently, he only puts it in Matthew's gospel? (You do realize, of course, that Matthew is phrased solely in terms of the husband divorcing the wife because, under Jewish law, the wife COULD NOT divorce the husband. The best she could do was persuade the rabbinical council to convince the husband that he should divorce her.)

Lest there be any confusion, the position that you regard as dangerously unbiblical and characterize as Liberal is:

• A marriage is the God-instituted union of a man and a woman whereby they become one flesh (Genesis 2:24), and this union may be broken only by death.

The position that you regard as biblical is:

• A marriage is the God-instituted union of a man and a woman whereby they become one flesh, and this union may be broken only by death or unchastity.

You can read the NT this way, of course. It seems to me an unlikely reading in light of what Genesis says a marriage is, Jesus, who was not a "loophole" sort of guy, was contrasting the sanctity of the marital union with what had formerly been allowed due to the hardness of the Jews' hearts, so the notion of him inserting a Mack Truck-sized "unchastity" loophole in the middle of the discussion strikes me as highly unlikely. For the author of Matthew to have inserted this loophole to please his male-dominant, patriarchal Jewish audience does not strike me as unlikely at all.

I find it interesting how most like to quote Paul,
who is very misunderstood, EXCEPT in this case where
Jesus is always quoted in the Mathew version.
Interesting indeed.

 

[eddif]

Jeremiah 31:29 KJV
‘In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.'

Sometimes things change:
And
Sometimes wrong statements are corrected. The book of Job had much wrong speaking by Jobs friends, and Job straightened the statements out, prayed for the friends etc.

The Gentiles did not have to follow the circumcision party’s guidelines. Of keeping the law of Moses.

I really have not carefully studied divorce but.
Jeremiah 3:8 KJV
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Since all this history is active, I think care should be used in all this divorce talk.

How do we help folks before judgement. During life is the time to change:
Repent
Accept Jesus
Receive the Holy Spirit for power to witness

Approach judgement with a name written in the lambs book of life. Exort, rebuke with all long suffering while here.
II Timothy 4:2

eddif

 

[eddif]

JLB has a new thread on Salvation. I am trying not to dominate that thread.

Enough of a redneck does come.
eddif

 

[eddif]

Proverbs 25:17 kjv
Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbour's house; lest he be weary of thee, and sohate thee.

Under the old covenant you could (wear out your welcome).

Acts 2;46 KJV
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

New covenant:
They was always together talking politics and religion at church and in each other’s homes. LOL

The internet lets us spend a bunch of time together.

Y’all be coming back soon; you hear.

Redneck
eddif

 

[JLB]

How do we help folks before judgement. During life is the time to change:
Repent
Accept Jesus
Receive the Holy Spirit for power to witness

On this I believe we all agree.

Do you disagree with the meaning of “inherit the kingdom of God” as Jesus used it.



The definition of inherit the Kingdom of God as used by Jesus.

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34

• These on the right hand were declared to be blessed, and were welcome to enter the kingdom of God.

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41

• These on the left hand were judged and found to be cursed, in which they were not welcome to enter the kingdom of God.

Instead they sentenced to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.


Inherit the kingdom of God = Welcome to enter the kingdom of God, on the Day of Judgement.


Do not inherit the kingdom of God =
Sentenced to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, on the Day of Judgement.


JLB

 

[eddif]

On this I believe we all agree.

Do you disagree with the meaning of “inherit the kingdom of God” as Jesus used it.



The definition of inherit the Kingdom of God as used by Jesus.

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34

• These on the right hand were declared to be blessed, and were welcome to enter the kingdom of God.

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41

• These on the left hand were judged and found to be cursed, in which they were not welcome to enter the kingdom of God.

Instead they sentenced to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.


Inherit the kingdom of God = Welcome to enter the kingdom of God, on the Day of Judgement.


Do not inherit the kingdom of God =
Sentenced to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, on the Day of Judgement.


JLB

I suppose reading about the development of the apostles, gives me the idea they received some spiritual gifts st Pentecost.

The apostle gift allowed the writing of the New Testament. Jesus is presently on the throne. Intercession is being made for us.

I just believe the word became flesh and his actions and words were / are the word. To look at his actions and hear his words were to hear Old Testament scriptures manifested. So as I study Jesus I study the Bible / Word in action.

You tend to be heavy on the words. I tend to be heavy on words and actions (true actions of God - discern spirits).

John 1:14
Matthew 28:18

eddif

 

[JLB]

I suppose reading about the development of the apostles, gives me the idea they received some spiritual gifts st Pentecost.

The apostle gift allowed the writing of the New Testament. Jesus is presently on the throne. Intercession is being made for us.

I just believe the word became flesh and his actions and words were / are the word. To look at his actions and hear his words were to hear Old Testament scriptures manifested. So as I study Jesus I study the Bible / Word in action.

You tend to be heavy on the words. I tend to be heavy on words and actions (true actions of God - discern spirits).

John 1:14
Matthew 28:18

eddif

What does this have to do with the definition of inherit the kingdom as Jesus defined it?

 

[eddif]

What does this have to do with the definition of inherit the kingdom as Jesus defined it?

If you noticed during your thread, there is a mention of a physical outward kingdom and a semi-parallel inward kingdom. There is also an eternal kingdom in heaven. I am absolutely interested in all of it. All three?

Redneck
eddif

 

[th1b.taylor]

Then, of course, we have Luke 16:18 (NASB): "“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Not to mention Paul speaking in the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (NASB): "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."

Matthew 5:22 has Jesus interrupting his Sermon On the Mount, which is not noted for loopholes, to insert the same exception found in Matthew 19 and nowhere else. Paul, writing before any of the gospels, was unaware of this exception. The author of Mark, the first gospel, was unaware of this exception. Luke, whom most scholars believe had both Mark and Matthew, went with Mark. Someone "added to" or "subtracted from" something.

When God really wants to emphasize something, apparently, he only puts it in Matthew's gospel? (You do realize, of course, that Matthew is phrased solely in terms of the husband divorcing the wife because, under Jewish law, the wife COULD NOT divorce the husband. The best she could do was persuade the rabbinical council to convince the husband that he should divorce her.)

Lest there be any confusion, the position that you regard as dangerously unbiblical and characterize as Liberal is:

• A marriage is the God-instituted union of a man and a woman whereby they become one flesh (Genesis 2:24), and this union may be broken only by death.

The position that you regard as biblical is:

• A marriage is the God-instituted union of a man and a woman whereby they become one flesh, and this union may be broken only by death or unchastity.

You can read the NT this way, of course. It seems to me an unlikely reading in light of what Genesis says a marriage is, Jesus, who was not a "loophole" sort of guy, was contrasting the sanctity of the marital union with what had formerly been allowed due to the hardness of the Jews' hearts, so the notion of him inserting a Mack Truck-sized "unchastity" loophole in the middle of the discussion strikes me as highly unlikely. For the author of Matthew to have inserted this loophole to please his male-dominant, patriarchal Jewish audience does not strike me as unlikely at all.

My point, that you skimmed over, in the literal translation by Young you words of offense are not there. I you, like I, do not read the Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, we should be very conservative in our remarks. Coupled with this text, we should remember the quadruple mentioned warning about adding to or subtracting from the word of God.

By inference, between the lines and because of the curse, it is, perfectly, reasonable to notice that God protects His Word, Ancient Manuscripts or translations. We are a falsely proud lot and we tend not to give God any credit for the position He holds in the scheme of things and in doing so elevate ourselves.

If we are, ever, to serve God, we must surrender everything to Him and to learn humility.

 

[Runner]

My point, that you skimmed over, in the literal translation by Young you words of offense are not there. I you, like I, do not read the Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, we should be very conservative in our remarks. Coupled with this text, we should remember the quadruple mentioned warning about adding to or subtracting from the word of God.

By inference, between the lines and because of the curse, it is, perfectly, reasonable to notice that God protects His Word, Ancient Manuscripts or translations. We are a falsely proud lot and we tend not to give God any credit for the position He holds in the scheme of things and in doing so elevate ourselves.

If we are, ever, to serve God, we must surrender everything to Him and to learn humility.

I did miss your point. I thought you had cited Matthew 5:22 to show that the "unchastity loophole" appears in two verses. Certainly "whoredom" would be more extreme than "mere" sexual immorality. But the point is the same: the "whoredom loophole" is still a loophole. I believe it's an insertion by the author of Matthew and that God intends for marriage to be permanent, period. You believe this is "subtracting from" the Word of God, and that's fine. If marriage were understood to be permanent, it would be taken a lot more seriously within the Christian community than it is - not only during the marriage itself, but (perhaps more importantly) before it was entered into in the first place. It appears to me that the VAST majority of Christians have bought into the concept of no-fault divorce, or at least divorce for "anything that seems like a good reason to me" - which is ADDING to your understanding FAR MORE than mine is subtracting from it. (I am not suggesting a wife must stay with a physically abusive husband or a husband with a promiscuous wife. I am saying you get one marriage, and if you make a stupid mistake you now regret the marriage nonetheless survives until the death of one of you.)

 

[eddif]

What does this have to do with the definition of inherit the kingdom as Jesus defined it?

Jesus always lived out his definitions.
So:
Step 1. You have a definition.
Step 2. You think you understand what is defined.
Step 3. Jesus is demonstrating the word in each of his actions.
Step 4. You perceive there is a conflict between:
the definition
your thoughts
His actions
5. More meditation to find a way to reconcile any supposed differences.
6. Satan is trying to confuse all efforts.
7. Things I have not considered
..............

The ox / preacher / bishop

4 stomachs / 4 mental processes
1. General thoughts
2. Meditation - chew cud
3. Bacteria break down tough fibers
4. Digest bacteria - overcome Satan
.............

I see through a glass darkly, but creation and scripture agree.
Romans 1:20

If you do not seem to get an answer in scripture alone, then look in:
Creation for a parallel
The life of Jesus
A truly Holy Spirit dream / vision

It is not about our carnal senses. Not what we feel is right. The temptation is to use our senses
Eve was tempted in garden to:
see
taste
pride

We put flesh to death (reckon dead)

Strange Mississippi redneck
eddif