Morality

[Moral Orel]

You don't seem to catch on with the concept of justice or fair play and that Jesus revised the law because it was given to hard hearted people. You deliberately ignore things like the oral traditions, the Spirit of prophecy, good examples for record like Ruth, the apostles the gifts and the Spirit of truth.

You know you quoted me talking about what's in the Talmud and then said I ignore the oral tradition right?

 

[Moral Orel]

Which part of the Talmud are you referring to, the Mishnah or the Gemara? And why this fixation with OT? As Christians we have a new covenant with God and it is spelled out in the Gospels and the rest of the NT.

If someone else points out something in the OT, and I comment on it, that means I'm fixating on the OT? Come one man...

And the Mishnah by the way.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

You know you quoted me talking about what's in the Talmud and then said I ignore the oral tradition right?

I did not mention the Talmud.

 

[Moral Orel]

TDNT says in the period between the OT and NT it widened to include all sex outside marriage. They cite a number of examples, but without tracking down the originals it's hard for me to assess whether they're right. Most commentators seem to agree, though, so I assume they're right.

One commentary notes that in Roman society men often had wives to bear their legitimate children and mistresses for sexual satisfaction. Christianity rejected this, maintaining that sex should only be within marriage.

I've read the Bible, but I've not read much of any extra-biblical sources. Can you link me to something specific?

Even in Judaism, as far as I can tell, premarital sex isn't forbidden, it's just that marital sex is the ideal. So it would be Christians after the events of the Bible who decided that premarital sex is forbidden, and not necessarily the people quoted in the Bible. Perhaps. Like I said, I don't have your reference to look at, but that's what it seems like at first glance.

 

[Moral Orel]

I did not mention the Talmud.

You mentioned the oral traditions. The Talmud is the oral tradition of the OT Jews. I mentioned the Talmud and you said I ignore the oral tradition. See the problem?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

You mentioned the oral traditions. The Talmud is the oral tradition of the OT Jews. I mentioned the Talmud and you said I ignore the oral tradition. See the problem?

Yes, by oral tradition I mean the practice of Moses' law by the inner circle with Moses and their inheritors. Like the anointed ones, Ruth the prophet school, and to some extent the Talmud the rabbis. I just checked it in wikipedia. The Talmud, 6200 pages long. Jesus did not agree with all of it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Fornicate meant sex outside of marriage; guess what?.....it still means that today.

Sigh... Guess what? There is no word for "fornicate" in ancient Greek or Hebrew.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Israel depended on Moses for righteousness and the favour of God... but Moses depended on Israel for obedience and service, food and protection unless one considers the part of that time when God wanted to start again, just with Moses.

Moses ate manna. He did not depend on the people for food. And his protection was God. Why are you so desperate to defend a bad point?

God did not endorse slavery as we have said and I say again, God wanted Israel to remember how Egypt treated them and not to repeat.

Leviticus 25:44-46.

The only bad form of slavery was a Jew being enslaved. That's why the laws are racist in favor of Jews.

Notice how over 2 million Jews left in the exodus and yet there's no mention of gentile slaves tagging along. Did the Egyptians own 2 million+ slaves and no one else? Did gentile slaves tag along in the exodus? Or did the Jews simply not care about the suffering of gentile slaves?

Jesus is God and at the more opportune time, after Ruth and being also descended from Jesse of Boaz, explained that Moses made concession because Israel was hard of heart, they may have rejected God or Moses if he was exact.

So then seeing as how Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, can we assume it's OK to be gay? Paul hates homosexuality but he also endorses slavery so maybe he does both out of the hardness of heart.

As for ND post 66 and fornication, I was explaining that Moses taught and we practice, by interpretation, to marry if there has been a fornication. Also that Peter extracted from the laws, with authority over Moses, that fornication was sin and not to be practiced by Jewish and gentile Christians. According to the spiritual and soft hearted theme.

You aren't paying attention. The point is that rape is not a criminal activity in the Old Testament. It is only wrong if accompanied by some form of sexual misconduct, such as fornication with a virgin.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Sigh... Guess what? There is no word for "fornicate" in ancient Greek or Hebrew.

Fornicate means sex outside of marriage including adultery.
The OT defines it through lengthy passages. Moses law with Ruth, with Wisdom, and then the NT and Peter and the oral tradition, the apostles and successors traditions...
The word "fornicate" comes from Latin.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, by oral tradition I mean the practice of Moses' law by the inner circle with Moses and their inheritors. Like the anointed ones, Ruth the prophet school, and to some extent the Talmud the rabbis. I just checked it in wikipedia. The Talmud, 6200 pages long. Jesus did not agree with all of it.

The Talmud wasn't written down until much later after it came into use. That's why it is "the oral tradition". And I know Jesus and most Christians don't agree with all of it. That's why I told you in the other thread that we shouldn't be looking at anything other than the Bible because that's the only thing everyone agrees isn't heretical. But since you still bring it up, I talked about it with you. Then you tell me I'm ignoring it.

Can you address the actual things I said though? Your verse makes it illegal for a man to have sex with a virgin. That does not equal "no sex outside of marriage". Divorcees hooking up is one example of many that is acceptable.

 

[Moral Orel]

Fornicate means sex outside of marriage including adultery.
The OT defines it through lengthy passages. Moses law with Ruth, with Wisdom, and then the NT and Peter and the oral tradition, the apostles and successors traditions...

Pertinent verses please. I've been the one looking up all of your claims so far, it's time for you to do the legwork.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

The Talmud wasn't written down until much later after it came into use. That's why it is "the oral tradition". And I know Jesus and most Christians don't agree with all of it. That's why I told you in the other thread that we shouldn't be looking at anything other than the Bible because that's the only thing everyone agrees isn't heretical. But since you still bring it up, I talked about it with you. Then you tell me I'm ignoring it.

Can you address the actual things I said though? Your verse makes it illegal for a man to have sex with a virgin. That does not equal "no sex outside of marriage". Divorcees hooking up is one example of many that is acceptable.

I don't agree with only quoting the Bible. Although bringing out old and new with the early church in view is much better.

I agree with Jesus, thinking of what He meant then and how it applies now.

It is not so much about law as peace, wholeness, love life and esteem, history of the body, healthy child rearing... Peter taught with revelation of God not to fornicate.

If someone divorces because of the other one's infidelity and marries a widow that is ok.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, you don't seem to understand the purpose of the OT Law and why it was given to the Jews as compared to what is written in Genesis.

You didn't ask me about OT Law.

The short answer is yes. I explained the passage to you but you are unable to see it as anything other than a contradiction because the explanation satisfies the 'natural man' in you. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that to the 'natural man' (those without the Holy Spirit) all scripture is foolishness.
KJV
14 But G1161 the natural G5591 man G444 receiveth G1209 not G3756 the things G3588 of the Spirit G4151 of God G2316: for G1063 they are G2076 foolishness G3472 unto him G846: neither G2532 G3756 can G1410 he know G1097 them, because G3754 they are spiritually G4153 discerned G350.
ISV
14 A person who isn’t spiritual doesn’t accept the things of God’s Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can’t understand them because they are spiritually evaluated.
So, until you are a believer much of scripture, especially the spiritual meanings, will remain a mystery to you regardless of how someone tries to explain. This is the very reason so many non-believers come up with so many strange ideas about Christianity.
Only if their 'scripture' were of God which it is not.......

And if I belonged to a cult and tried to put forth that logic to you about why you see contradictions in my cult's holy doctrines, what would you say of that logic?

 

[Moral Orel]

Guilty. Take it from here mate, I simply can't deal with that guy any more.

I think he likes you more than me. He replied to your reply to me, but not my reply to him... Weird...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think he likes you more than me. He replied to your reply to me, but not my reply to him... Weird...

He came here because I invited him from another thread. He is here to explain how Christians don't cherry pick. So that's probably why. The problem, obviously, is that he has to cherry pick to be able to claim that slavery is wrong and thus he just ignores the issue repeatedly.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You didn't ask me about OT Law.

And if I belonged to a cult and tried to put forth that logic to you about why you see contradictions in my cult's holy doctrines, what would you say of that logic?

That they are not of God......therefore they have no basis to make that claim except on the word of the cult leader......which is where such a statement would have originated.....

 

[Moral Orel]

they have no basis to make that claim except on the word of the cult leader......which is where such a statement would have originated.....

Right. So we do understand each other.

 

[hedrick]

I've read the Bible, but I've not read much of any extra-biblical sources. Can you link me to something specific?

Even in Judaism, as far as I can tell, premarital sex isn't forbidden, it's just that marital sex is the ideal. So it would be Christians after the events of the Bible who decided that premarital sex is forbidden, and not necessarily the people quoted in the Bible. Perhaps. Like I said, I don't have your reference to look at, but that's what it seems like at first glance.

First, it’s clear that the definition includes adultery and prostitution.

The real question is premarital intercourse. I’m assuming the couple isn’t betrothed, as I think you can make a case that sex in that case was at least tolerated. Although I’ve largely made this posting independently I have reviewed “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina”, by Joseph Jensen. Novum Testamentum, Vol. 20, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 161-184.

If you’re interested in seeing the case made that pre-marital intercourse is not forbidden, the classic reference is the one to which this replies, i.e. “Does Porneia Mean Fornication?”, Bruce Malina. Novum Testamentum, Vol. 14, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1972), pp. 10-17

Those with university connections can probably access these through a library. Otherwise it looks like you can register for one-time access.

Independent of finding actual examples of word usage, consider what’s plausible. Is it really plausible that it was OK for an unmarried girl to have sex with someone? Pretty clearly not. Unmarried girls were supervised by the family for the whole purpose of preventing that. In Ex 22:16 the implication is that doing that effectively makes the girl your wife. In Deut 22:14 ff there’s a death penalty for a woman if her husband finds she wasn’t a virgin at marriage.

In post-Biblical Judaism the tendency was to apply similar standards to men as women, however the prohibition against men is certainly less clear (though Philo explicitly says that men are expected to come to marriage as virgins).

In the NT consider 1 Cor 7:9. That makes it clear that you were expected to marry if you wanted to have sex. 1 Cor 6:13 ff implies that sex makes the partners one body, which implies marriage.

It’s less clear about widows. I sometimes get the impression that they were freer than unmarried women.

The article by Malina maintains that there was no clear law against pre-marital intercourse. That appears to be true. However not everything is covered by explicit legislation. If a participant in pre-marital intercourse is killed for not being a virgin, it probably doesn’t matter to her whether there was a law against pre-marital intercourse.

(As always, I note that there's some question whether this kind of death penalty was commonly enforced. However they do indicate that something is forbidden.)

 

[civilwarbuff]

Right. So we do understand each other.

Are you implying that Christianity is a cult?

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you implying that Christianity is a cult?

Nope. That's why I snipped the part about God from your quote so I wouldn't seem to be doing that. From what I quoted of you there, everything you said about how you would view such a claim, is how I view your claim, just like it should be. That is what the natural response to such a claim should be.