dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
42
Is there really a Bible rule against sex without marriage?
by Halcon inregarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
-
-
-
7
What is the Best Way to Reach Out to My JW Brother?
by ApostolicJesus93 ini am not a jw, nor have i ever been.
i'm an apostolic pentecostal.
i do have an older half-brother who is about 13 years my senior.
-
-
peacefulpete
In my opinion, just call and say a friendly hello, things will develop naturally. Don't assume he will resist talking with nonJW family. Most of us kept at least a polite relationship with relatives. Life is complicated and motives are not always what is assumed. Don't talk church or Bible. It will shut down any normal conversation. As a Pentecostal, that might be a challenge. Be aware that as strongly as you believe what you do, he believes what he does. For an hour just be family.
-
42
Is there really a Bible rule against sex without marriage?
by Halcon inregarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
-
-
peacefulpete
I would argue that it is, but the Bible is silent, preferring to focus on proving how much a girl bleeds on her first night.
-
11
I Guess I'll Tell My John DeLorean story ...
by Terry ini guess i'll tell my john de lorean story_______.
in the summer of '74 i moved my family to southern california.hooray for us!
is it ready, john?".
-
-
peacefulpete
Terry...I was just wondering if you still had the story, it seems to have disappeared into the ether.
-
6
Funny Money
by peacefulpete ini ran across this piece of history again and thought i'd share it before i forget it again.
we discussed the story in mark featuring the image of caesar on a coin as setup for the famous line, "give caesar's things to caesar...".
the writer was apparently unaware that the roman coinage circulating in judea did not have the usual image of caesar but rather depicted barley or palms and such and was often minted in judea.
-
-
peacefulpete
I ran across this piece of history again and thought I'd share it before I forget it again. We discussed the story in Mark featuring the image of Caesar on a coin as setup for the famous line, "Give Caesar's things to Caesar...". The writer was apparently unaware that the Roman coinage circulating in Judea did not have the usual image of Caesar but rather depicted barley or palms and such and was often minted in Judea. Procuratorial coinage of Roman Judaea - Wikipedia
This to me is a minor point but supports the writing of Mark as after 70 whereupon the Romans issued the Judaea Capta coinage with Caesar's image (Judaea Capta coinage - Wikipedia) or simple reveals the author's unfamiliarity with the local situation, likely living in Rome. It should be noted however that Phillip the Tetrarch (4BCE-34CE) in Galilee and later Herod Agrippa (37-44 CE) issued some prutahs (like pennies) that had an image of Caesar. Given the concession the Romans gave regarding their coinage, the Herodian use of the image of Caesar or themselves is especially odd. I imagine the motivation was a demonstration of fealty. Herodian coinage - Wikipedia
What follows really strikes me as bizarre. The Temple use of Tyrian Shekels.
Beged Ivri -- Jerusalem's Tyrian Shekel
In the second century BCE, Rome, the ruling power, operated two mints in the Mediterranean region, one in Lebanon at Tyre, and the second at Antioch. The mint in Tyre produced Tyrian Shekels and Half-Shekels, of a 95% silver purity, between the years 127 BCE and 19 BCE. In the year 19 BCE Rome closed the mint in Tyre and began to import an inferior silver coinage from the Far East consisting of 80% pure silver.
The Religious leaders in Israel, realizing that the new coinage was not sufficiently pure to fulfil the Commandment of giving the Holy Half-Shekel appealed to the Emperor for permission to produce a ceremonial coin of sufficient purity to fulfil our religious obligations. The Rabbanim received special dispensation to produce the requisite coinage on condition that they continue with the motif of the Tyrian Shekel, so as not to arouse objections within the Roman Empire that the Jews were granted "autonomy" to mint their own coinage.
Now the Rabbanim in the year 19/18 BCE had a serious problem. On the one hand, the giving of the Holy Half-Shekel is a Torah Commandment. The problem arises with the motif of the Tyrian Shekel. On the obverse appears the image of Melkhart, known to us as Hercules, the god of the Phoenicians. On the reverse, appears an eagle on the bow of a ship with the legend: "Tyre the Holy and City of Refuge", and the date of issue..... The coins minted in Jerusalem between the years 18 BCE and 65 CE were virtually identical to their predecessors from Tyre.... Both images, a foreign god (or any likeness of man) and an eagle, are Torah prohibitions. And yet the Rabbanim decided that the importance of the giving of the Holy Half-Shekel superseded the violations incurred in using the Tyrian motif. More than this, these coins were actually brought into the very Beit Hamikdash itself, a vault room full of coins depicting a foreign god, inside the very Temple. And the sages went as far as issuing the decree, as recorded in the Talmud, that only the Tyrian Shekel was acceptable for fulfilling the Commandment of giving the Holy Half-Shekel (because of its silver purity).I imagine the different Roman response to Jewish request for concessions depended upon the individuals involved and exact circumstances.
This is the primary reason money changers were in the Temple. Everyone had to exchange their money, not just rare individuals from outside the Roman empire as the WT offers as an explanation.
-
42
Is there really a Bible rule against sex without marriage?
by Halcon inregarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
-
-
peacefulpete
I never liked the word "immoral". As I see it, what ought to shape a person's morals is primarily a concern for the wellbeing of others. I also respect the vow to partner up in life with someone and the pain breaking that vow can cause.
I see no moral issue involved in the intimacy of two consenting single people in love. I do see a moral issue in marital rape or any other form of abuse within a marriage. Married or not married, the concern for wellbeing determines the morality.
-
42
Is there really a Bible rule against sex without marriage?
by Halcon inregarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
-
-
peacefulpete
What was your first clue? The misogyny? Or the homophobia?
Vidiot, point taken. However I was trying to determine if the 'Paul' that said, "there is neither male nor female" and said women deaconesses were partners in his ministry or the 'Paul' who demanded women "remain silent" and be taught at home by their husbands, was the real Paul.
Similarly, is the 'Paul' who got Timmy circumcised and 'became all things to win others' the real Paul or the one who said "For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ" and wished anyone who believed in circumcision to 'cut their penis off'?
Is the real Paul the guy who said "all things are lawful" and idols are nothing to be concerned about, or the guy who raged against eating meat sacrificed to idols as having "communion with demons" and inciting God's jealous anger?
Until very recently I was of the opinion that Paul was the liberal voice and the conservative reflected a later interpolator. A few analyses have convinced me the opposite occurred, with a third influence promoting church unity with emphasis upon the greater good of compromise.
-
42
Is there really a Bible rule against sex without marriage?
by Halcon inregarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
-
-
peacefulpete
I go back to the Acts 15 story wherein, as I understand it, the author is rewriting history a bit to portray a united church at an early stage where in fact there was not yet an orthodoxy. The issues that were most disturbing to the Pharisee Christians in Jerusalem were ostensibly "Pauline" ideas about foods sacrificed to idols and eating blood as food as well as the Christian freedom from concerns about mere corporeal matters like porneia. After reading a dozen proposed recreations of the original Pauline position, I have concluded the evidence confirms redaction and interpolation throughout, but exactly what Paul himself thought (he may have adjusted his own views) will never be certain. The role of women, compromising for the sake of others, matters of sex and eating sacrificed meat are especially found in contradictory arguments, often right next to each other.
Myself, I have come recently to suspect Paul himself was conservative and probably a hardnose. Some collections of writings were gathered into longer epistles by those who had followed his leadership. Very soon after the 'book' was produced an influential more Gnostic voice seems to have basically diffused Paul's conservatism through the addition of a few lines here and there. The Gnostic branches of Christianity were responsible for the letters' preservation. This is the form of the work that circulated more widely. Then about a 70 years later the Patristic redactions occurred, probably at the same time possibly the same hand as the Pastoral epistles. This was possibly after the book of Acts was written. These interpolations have Paul sound more concerned with image and accommodation to expected societal norms, some of which appears in Acts as well.
This leads back my comment about Acts 15. It seems the author was countering a then present form of Pauline Christianity, one shaped by the early interpolations, one that saw Christian freedom as liberating not legislative. Women seen as equals in the sight of God. Acts also shows no awareness of the Pastorals and the timeline they suppose.
-
42
Is there really a Bible rule against sex without marriage?
by Halcon inregarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
-
-
peacefulpete
I have trouble with quotations, for some reason I'm unable to resume typing after one without it all being in the quotation.
-
42
Is there really a Bible rule against sex without marriage?
by Halcon inregarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
-
-
peacefulpete
(Porneia) fornication is not defined as hetero-sex between a single man and woman in love. Certain Pauline comments have been interpreted as such, but it is not explicit.
Basically because passages like 1 Cor 7:
Nevertheless, to avoid porneia, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
lend to that interpretation. However, a careful reading only says that without an outlet for sexual desire, porneia is a greater temptation. It does not define porneia in this passage.
Further, the author's argument is hard to follow, as they suggest that unlike other "sins" poneia involves a person's sinning against their own bodies. 1 Cor 6
12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]18 Flee from porneia. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever does porneia, sins against their own body.
His argument as I said is hard to follow. He is at one hand saying Christians have a right to do things but there is something ritualistically, sacramentally inappropriate about porneia. He lifts the "one flesh" from Genesis and literalizes it as sexual coupling. He then uses it metaphorically as union of spirit with Christ. It adds an odd sexual element to the Christian union with Christ. It also doesn't explain how a married Christian who has sex with their partner isn't also "cheating" on Christ as it were. It's not a good argument. He also seems to specify prostitution as porneia.
As a side note, from the standpoint of the unique WT interpretation of these passages, the objection ought not apply to "Other Sheep" who do not share in the death and body of Christ.
I have resisted in this instance saying "Paul" wrote this or that because many of these sections in 1Cor show evidence of at least 2 layers of interpolation. One very early, one about a century later. That is another huge topic.