sky4it

dmiller: comment: , yet I am not willing to toss out (say) the gospels as irrelevant, just because we now have the Epistles of Paul. absolutely yes you really cant weaken them anyway with Paul's stuff, after all, it was the Lord Jesus and the cross that was the focal point of what Paul said. :)-->

sirgues: Personally I think the word sin is something like a "grevious error." Mistakes on the other hand are human. I am not trying to differentiate with you on sematics without a point. I think our Lord was very human and therefore very vulnerable. Understanding that God also is vulnerable is IMO very important. It makes him more reachable. Amazingly,we can somehow impact him with our prayers.

dmiller: Bullinger had an analytic mind. It probably never hurt to catalog things. Personally I think it only became damaging when someone tried to take such works and then treat the Lords words and ministry as tho they were of lessor quality. One can only imagine how the Apostle Paul would have went nutzy, had he had the gospels in written form. I think he would have been awesome with it.

Evan: Of course perhaps the most wacko man IMO with respect to dispensations was Joseph Smith, who claimed that word applied to him in his book of Mormon. ie. ( I believed he claimed a dispensation for himself) Last summer, Evan, I studied the covenants in the Bible and its really fun. From the covenent to Noah all the way to the covenent of the blood of Christ. Its very interesting that some place it talks about the "everlasting covenent." It will be wonderful to watch and see someday how our Lord raps this whole thing up.

Evan: Was it your view then that TWI teachings ignored or put lessor emphasis on the Gospel teachings of Christ because of the believe that the letters to the churches where the only ones addressed "To Us"? I guess that's kinda how I understood it, although I really never hung around long enough to know if that was for sure. Interesting topically, that the scripture used most frequently IMO was the "no interpetation" one from Peter. Peter , the Apostle , of the circumcision, words are used to circumcise( sorry for the pun) the Epistles as the only prevailing scripture? I thought this was the greater error, but perhaps the one that created the dispensationalism that you speak.

Bramble: I would say my experience is not unlike yours having been involved in many different churches and seen many differing levels of control and gossip and such. I would say my outcome is completely different tho and I see it only as a reason that validates God's righteousness and his acts from what I see in men. Therefore my outcome is certainly far different than yours.

Just thinking: your comment: Tell what to do with my life? Can I move to your house, watch your kids and generally work for nothing? Just tell me vague spiritual sounding sound bites and I'll be happy, oh greek master. ;-) Ah yes my child, and I will appoint a prophet & priest for my king dumb, but then you could not think no more and that would be sad :(-->, but oh child, I your guru shall think about your offer, and if you pay your tithe, I may let you oh child on board :D--> NOT

I presume by mistakes don't you mean, did he ever trip over himself, say something and regret it, doubt what he did, etc. Today I think much about the humanity of Christ. Particularly that verse in Hebrews that says "being made perfect" and the one in the gospels where he said therefore I santify myself. it allows for some interesting thought.

proberge: your comment: so, you have taken far more greek than VeePee. Is it now Dr. Sky4it? No way man, but I see your humor. I consider the greek mostly worthless as far as practical things go. Most folks can simply pick up a Vines Dictionary and do just fine. I dont see any benefit beyond that. take care.

MJ: I agree with what you said. No, I do not think it is lustful to fix oneself up to be attractive. Living in such a way would be very legalistic.

proberge: your comment: 2) VeePee only took one semester(at Princeton?)(freshman level) of classical greek, not any biblical greek. serious? crud, I took 15 credits of Biblical Greek at a Lutheran college, due in large part to all the Greek they were tossing around, cripes, oh well, at least it counted toward my degree.

Oak: your comment: But to me, the biggest contradiction is the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the god of love and forgiveness in the NT. It's not the same god - okay, let me put it this way: in my opinion, it sure doesn't look like the same god! There are 3 things that I have come to think differently about that make him seem the same to me. 1) With respect to David and the 10,000's he had slain, he was coming back with there foreskins, therefore I think he may have been converting them to Judiasm. 2) With respect to the folks in the exodus, I think sometime we forget that there were many years that at sometime lapsed between an action of God, and his mercy that he showed. 3) With respect to the law and stoning certain type of sinners, I wondered at length why the Lord could not stone the adulter brought to him and still fulfill the law. Since Hebrews says the law is a shadow of the true, I think now that stoning of certain acts is a certainy by men who would disapprove of there deeds, thus the law fulfills itself quite naturally. I am not sure in any instance that God didn't show mercy and longsuffering to any man. As I suffer myself for others, it has certainly given me an appreciation for his patience that I didn't have before. Anyways, this concept that you mentioned is one that I have thought a lot about also which used to make me somewhat afraid of a judgemental God. Today, I see his wrath as when he walks away and leaves us to our own devices.

dmiller: Yeppers, yah got me pegged. My mother is full Swede. My father was mostly Norweigion some Swede. :)-->

gang: I have probably attended some 9 or 10 different denominations over the past 20 years. I would say that in most places ( with some exceptions) there also is an attitude of pride or superiority. Was it more extreme in TWI? Well, at least as extreme as perhaps in two other places that I visited. (I do think denominations have changed dramatically and become less critical of others in the last 10-12 years) Personally, I think this type of pride we have to guard against. Remember that the Apostle Paul was almost ashamed "to boast" or "to glory". I think this is because it is really not the nature of Christ to be self assertive and boastful. The proof in any ministry must be, IMO, in the power of God. Noticeably in the Apostle's life, the Lord used his weakness to manifest his strength. I thought to add this, because I think anyone can take the "TWI experience" and move on and make good of it in the Lord. Neither does this mean I am giving a TWI sales pitch, for I have already asserted some of my differences with their views.

Abigail: Your comment: 1. I have a very difficult time seeing someone who would allow their son to die on a cross as being a loving father. Actually, I dont have a problem with this. I believe the fall of man broke God's heart. Maybe the concept of God , as a wounded person as we are at times, makes him much more reachable for me.

MJ: Your comment: #2 I doubt masterbation is considered sex or is menstration or semen sinful any more than blood is sinfull it is a fluid which we were created with in Gods image . I never said it was sex. Your comment: #1 it does not imply or state anything about a person touching himself other than to wash away the defiled skin. Leviticus 15:32 This is the law, etc etc etc, and is defiled therewith. Matt 15:11-20 "to eat with unwashen hands defileth not" In no place in the text in Leviticus does it say that the skin is unclean and not the man. It says "His issue and she shall be unclean. " Therefore I disagree with you. Furthermore it is about what defiles a man. Your comment: mastubation when clearly most would think everything eles but that! eyes and hands have much to do with sex acts. Ok MJ thats fine, but at least admit that eyes and hands have to do with both sex and masturbation. Your comment: it does not say a thing about masturbation unless you chose to think it does. . I doobt they had a word to describe the act, so I dont know about that. Your comment: if you chose to think beyond what they say go ahead but that is not a clear scripture stating masturbation is sin or even wrong. I think it is clear and I stated why in the previous post. I do not know how the scripture regards this particular "offense". As I stated previously, the scriptures don't give us a clear doctrinal position on the matter and wisely so. I do believe that it is an act that at the minimum God frowns upon. It is not consistent with the concept of "self control" in the bible or the concept of crucifying the lust of the flesh. I disagree with you that these scriptures I recited are not related to that matter. MJ, yah know, I have some different views on the concept of the "original sin" and other things. The format here at GS allows variances of opinion. Perhaps some times we should just expect to disagree. :)-->

Galen: Conceptually of course there were issues of cleanliness as far as making the skin clean. The context of the passages in Leviticus is clearly about things that defile a man. Therefore it must mean more than just skin issues, for the Lord wasnt real big on washing his hands himself. All I am saying is that there is more to it than skin issues in that chapter of Leviticus. Much of the OT deals with shadows of the true as we know from Hebrews, Interestingly shadows depending on the direction of light can appear different. Shadows only give us the outline of the true, they do not give the detail on specific objects. Read a little closer, I think this chapter in Leviticus clearly discusses masterbation in that light.

MJ: your comment: what does hands or eyes have to do with sex? are you for real? what kind of question is that? My point exactly, the entire context of the passage is lust before and fornication after. And now your telling me what do eyes and hands have to do with sex? I said they have to do with masterbation and I dont think I have to explain why. Again your comment: again he does not address masturbation. I disagree with you. I think it clearly does. your comment: the point is to have concern for your virgin and love one another and to make a commintment and not use one another for sexual lust which leads to heart break and sin . I agree. your comment: nothing to do with masturbation at all. I disagree. you also asked me if I am for real. Therefore I think that will be my last comment to you on the topic.

MJ: Your comment: this is not neccesarily saying masturbation is bad.. if a man does not have sex for awhile their body will eject this fluid. (wet dreams) it is common in some young males . I believe the issue with the Lord in this passage is about staying clean from germs and bacteria and being clean on your SKIN. are you saying a wet dream or menus is sinful ? both have to do with body mechanics and not a choice of an individual . No I am not saying what you said above is sinful. I also agree with some of what you said above. If thy right eye offend thee pluck it out.......... V.29 If thy right hand offend thee cut it off V30 The subject matter is sexual topics, lust bieng descibed in verses above and divorce and fornication below. What does the eye and hand have in connection with sex if it wasnt masterbation? IMO, it doesnt rise to the level of offense of adultry or fornication. It does however rise to the level of lust, and I would say is an act of uncleanness as described in Leviticus. That there is no doctrine about it was wise or many people would feel condemned. It is therefore certainly at a minimum, something that God frowns upon. I think one could successfully make the arguement that it is a precursor to adultry and fornication. First lust, second - masterbation , third, fornication. Also consider the word offend in the verses, it doesn't say if your right hand sin against thee but if your right hand offend thee. Therefore I think thats precisely what the Lord was reffering to. Leviticus 15:16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash his flesh with water and be unclean until even. As you stated, and I agree, there would be no wrong doing in "wet dreams", I would say that if it go out from him (by him) that is different and therefore means masterbation. Interestingly, the bible says he is unclean, a concept well developed in the Lord's ministry. How that relates to sin exactly I cannot say. There is however in the law various degrees of offenses, which is why I cited in the opening post: tresspass, iniquity etc. Personally, I think it unwise to try and conceptualize these things in doctrinal format, for the law is complex and deals with many shadows of the true. Leviticus 15:32 "This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him and is defiled therewith." While the law may have been discussing bacterial things from issues of blood products, clearly this chapter was also descibing things that defile a man. The Lord himself said that out of the mouth and heart are the things that defile us. Therefore this chapter must have meaning along that line as well. This chapter describes "masterbation" as an act of uncleanness. Perhaps there was no such word to describe this behavior during the Lord's ministry. One could easily visualize however, the local brothels keeping the local tribes busy with eye hand acts, especially and in order to avoid disease. Lastly, I am having some difficulty posting at GS. I cannot easily navigate between screens so it may take me some time to figure out the problem, because I am not having this problem on other sites.

dmiller: your comment: Without trying to step on anyone's "theological toes" here, I feel that salvation is by faith alone, and thus -- Paul is the more correct of the two. HOWEVER -- if one has that salvation by faith, works will emenate from the heart. And when James says in 2:17 "Faith without works is dead, being alone" --he is right also. You get your salvation by faith, but if no works are forth-coming from you and your heart, then it is (for all practical purposes) "dead" within you. Excellent. I agree. Thats kinda why I said I didnt see the conflict. If you put food in your mouth it produces energyor fat. Energized faith by God in our hearts produces something. :)--> The difficulty of course is that if folks only rely on James statement, they can become legalistic :(-->, which wouldn't be good :(-->.

Galen: I would say that the thing with Onan doesn't even qualify, after all he had sex with the woman.

The songremains: your comment: Is The Mystery True??? You mean the mystery of Christ in You the hope of glory? Of course its true. The bible also says great is the mystery of godliness, so I simply think it takes time and experience to find the treasures. Paw: if your there i am having problems with your website logging in and out, no problems on other sites tho, something aint right. It takes forever to move from screen to screen.

MJ: Your comment: sky4 where does the bible address masturbation? Matthew 5:29-30 Leviticus 15: 16-17, 31-33.

The songremains: So many people of experience as well as you & me have the answer to lifes mystery.??? Well no I suppose we dont. It doesn't hurt once in a while to have a bowl of soup and say that while it isn't everything it sure tastes good. I guess that kinda sums up my "theology" and I dont even like that word. If life is like a box of choclates, I dont see why the Bible can be a nice bowl of soup. :)-->

The song remains: dah comments: .. But does extraodinary proof require extraordinary intelligence or the extra terestrial? Yes i was humoring yah, if that makes me a "wise guy" tell me to shut up. Hey what ever you decide uh ok, which leads me to another question. Does saying Extra Extra read all about carry any weight?