Eunuchs for the kingdom of God

[metis]

His indication was that those who held back the apostasy, himself, the still living apostles and primary elders, would have to die first:

2 Thessalonians 2:
3 Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because it will not be unless the apostasy have first come, and the man of sin have been revealed, the son of perdition; 4 who opposes and exalts himself on high against all called God, or object of veneration; so that he himself sits down in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Do ye not remember that, being yet with you, I said these things to you? 6 And now ye know that which restrains, that he should be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness already works; only there is he who restrains now until he be gone,
​

But one needs to look at the letters attributed to him as being in a succession as it appears that he modifies some of his positions as time goes on. Some theologians that I have read believe that Paul maybe came to realize that Jesus' return might not happen during his lifetime, thus necessitating modification of his teaching in this area and maybe even some others.

Hard to say.

 

[Spiderman]

But one needs to look at the letters attributed to him as being in a succession as it appears that he modifies some of his positions as time goes on. Some theologians that I have read believe that Paul maybe came to realize that Jesus' return might not happen during his lifetime, thus necessitating modification of his teaching in this area and maybe even some others.

Hard to say.

Oh but don't forget....all the new testament is God's breathed word

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

The point made by Christ and Paul are that marriage is a distraction from serving the Lord. Thus 'not touching a woman' sexually is encouraged. However, if you read Paul (Jesus does say anything about this directly at least) you will see that for the sake of not committing immorality, marriage is suggested.
If you want scriptures with this, let me know.
But, the point is, that Jesus never told us to do this to our bodies as in physical castration. He encouraged people who had the gift - singleness, the abstaining from sex. Indeed, the Bible strictly condemns those who forbid marriage and puts these with apostates.

See Barnes and Wesley for Matt 19:12, also other Christian commentators.

Thanks for making that clear. I do agree.

 

[Grandliseur]

But one needs to look at the letters attributed to him as being in a succession as it appears that he modifies some of his positions as time goes on. Some theologians that I have read believe that Paul maybe came to realize that Jesus' return might not happen during his lifetime, thus necessitating modification of his teaching in this area and maybe even some others.

Hard to say.

I cannot speak on things that others have considered but is not available before me for examination since I am no mind reader.
I don't mind examining such claims if put before me.

 

[Grandliseur]

Thanks for making that clear. I do agree.

Correcting an omission error of my own quote: ((Jesus doesn't say anything about this directly at least)
Sorry. My original text can no longer be edited it seems.

 

[Grandliseur]

Then how do we decide what is metaphor, what is just a story, and how we know what he was "really saying?"

I need to include something though I already answered. As to causing physical harm to oneself or others by various means, castration, amputation unnecessary, the answer is obviously a resounding negative.

What is at times not clear is the interpretation of the text. So, while I interpreted the 'making a eunuch of oneself' (paraphrased) one way, that does not mean that my interpretation is true. There is always room for considering other interpretations at times. In this case, the dogma does not impact most when considering all the handed down text. I am just saying that discussions about how to interpret things may assist in better understanding at times. Other times, things are straightforward.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In most cases, Christians have little trouble understanding Jesus.
Let us consider an extreme quote:
Matthew 5:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. Now, I am not going to tell you what it means imo.

Looks like it says to take your eyes out and whack your hand off to me. Or, does mean you're not actually supposed to put homosexuals to death, and their blood is on them is also metaphor? Is Creation and the Flood metaphor? Is the Passion and virgin birth metaphor?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I need to include something though I already answered. As to causing physical harm to oneself or others by various means, castration, amputation unnecessary, the answer is obviously a resounding negative.

What is at times not clear is the interpretation of the text. So, while I interpreted the 'making a eunuch of oneself' (paraphrased) one way, that does not mean that my interpretation is true. There is always room for considering other interpretations at times. In this case, the dogma does not impact most when considering all the handed down text. I am just saying that discussions about how to interpret things may assist in better understanding at times. Other times, things are straightforward.

How do we know what translation? The English ones tend to not be that good.

 

[Grandliseur]

Looks like it says to take your eyes out and whack your hand off to me.

Well, I hope this is an obvious hyperbole to you. A metaphor for something else.

Or, does mean you're not actually supposed to put homosexuals to death, and their blood is on them is also metaphor?

The laws about this and more, in the Mosaic law was for the nation of Israel, not for Christians. Since when in modern times do we get to make the laws of an entire nation. I am happy that religious freedom, and the freedom to claim no religion exists; I am sure you are too.

Is Creation and the Flood metaphor? Is the Passion and virgin birth metaphor?

Why do you think this should be metaphors? Are these things part of Christ's parables? I think not.

I am not sure what you refer to with 'the passion' of Christ. Didn't see the movie and do not intent to. If that is where you get your Biblical knowledge from, you need help. (not intending to offend)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The laws about this and more, in the Mosaic law was for the nation of Israel, not for Christians. Since when in modern times do we get to make the laws of an entire nation. I am happy that religious freedom, and the freedom to claim no religion exists; I am sure you are too.

Has Heaven and Earth come to an end?

 

[Grandliseur]

How do we know what translation? The English ones tend to not be that good.

I use a very good software called SWORD. It permits many many translations, it is free, but one can contribute. It has English, German, Greek, and so much more. Its KJV software has the Strong's dictionary available at the touch of a button.

When this doesn't suffice, I go on the net. There they have interlinear English Greek, or Hebrew / Aramaic Bible versions so that you can make up your own mind which translation is the best. Also, at times the NWT is good for searching and rendering text. It has the best search machine of them all. At times, its translation is good, and other times bad.

On search machines of the Bible, it must be said that if you do not know the word or phrase you are looking for in a scripture, it may be nearly impossible to find what you are looking for.

I like the ASV, Darby, ESV, Rotherham (at times). I also use a variety of others on difficult passages.

 

[Grandliseur]

Has Heaven and Earth come to an end?

It is unfortunate that I know what you refer to.

Let's get something straight. You do not believe in the Bible, and you are not Christian. In this then, I decide what I believe in. End of story to a degree.
I don't want to insult you or others in how intelligent they are. But, sometimes, it is hard not to. Like, when people do not understand the plain English used in scripture.

Example: I hire you to cut my grass of my garden (don't have one actually) I tell you, I'll pay you $30 for cutting this small garden's grass. I'll pay you if when you are finished. Come and get me so that I can verify the job is done.

The person now comes one hour later, the grass is not cut and he wants his money. Am I obliged to pay him? No. The condition was to cut the grass, and come and get me to verify the work has been done. Neither condition has been fulfilled. I need not pay, at least not yet.​

Many unbelievers now quote Matthew 5: 18:

ESV: 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Darby: 18 For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass.
KJV 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
ISV: 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.​

If you cannot see here that the disappearance of the law hinges on a conditional phrase in each and every translation, then this discussion cannot continue and you need to study conditional phases.

So, once 'everything has been accomplished' then the law was permitted to pass away.

This is why we read:

Luke 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on the kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it. ​

Jesus fulfilled the law. This is why we see that Paul tells us that the Mosaic law was done away with on the cross.

More of the same: link: Matt 5:17

​

 

[metis]

I cannot speak on things that others have considered but is not available before me for examination since I am no mind reader.
I don't mind examining such claims if put before me.

My point is that there are some different ways that a narrative may be interpreted, and this also can hypothetically apply to Paul's dogmatism on this matter. Paul appears to have modified his position on marriage, so it begs the question why? We cannot know for sure, but we can look at the possibilities that seem reasonable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I use a very good software called SWORD. It permits many many translations, it is free, but one can contribute. It has English, German, Greek, and so much more. Its KJV software has the Strong's dictionary available at the touch of a button.

When this doesn't suffice, I go on the net. There they have interlinear English Greek, or Hebrew / Aramaic Bible versions so that you can make up your own mind which translation is the best. Also, at times the NWT is good for searching and rendering text. It has the best search machine of them all. At times, its translation is good, and other times bad.

On search machines of the Bible, it must be said that if you do not know the word or phrase you are looking for in a scripture, it may be nearly impossible to find what you are looking for.

I like the ASV, Darby, ESV, Rotherham (at times). I also use a variety of others on difficult passages.

That doesn't address the question of how do we know what translation we know is best, or the point that English translations aren't that good. The KJV, for example, is known to not be that great of a translation.

Luke 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John.

That says nothing of "all things" (as the return of Christ is yet to come) nor does it say Heaven and Earth have passed.

This is why we see that Paul tells us that the Mosaic law was done away with on the cross.

Paul contradicts Jesus on many topics and points.

 

[Grandliseur]

appears to have modified his position on marriage

How? He speaks on marriage, the interplay, divorce if the unbeliever is abusive, the benefits of singleness. But, changing his views, I know not where to look.

 

[Grandliseur]

That doesn't address the question of how do we know what translation we know is best, or the point that English translations aren't that good. The KJV, for example, is known to not be that great of a translation.

There is no best translation. You get to know what is written by long familiarity. I gave you several examples of one verse. Which do you think presented the matter in the easiest way to understand, in the best English?" When then they all say the same thing, you know they are OK, but which is preferred then? That becomes a small matter. Commonly, I like ASV and Darby. At times, these contain small problems so I go to others such as Rotherham, etc.

Paul contradicts Jesus on many topics and points.

No, he doesn't.

If you saw my link, it contained exhaustive information to that particular subject.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which do you think presented the matter in the easiest way to understand, in the best English?" When then they all say the same thing,

They don't all say the same thing though. The KJV, for example, does not explicitly state homosexuality. Some of them do. It's because of the debate over a word that isn't easily translated or understood in contemporary Western understandings of sexuality that is explicitly one-or-the-other. Really, when they wrote "man who lies with a man as he would a woman," they were using the best understanding at the the time, and when it was written not even heterosexuality was known or understood. It's only with today's perceptions and understandings that modern translations can say "homosexual," because the original word doesn't describe it "homosexual" as we know it. Witch is another word where changes in cultural attitudes has shifted how that word is interpreted and understood, and doesn't really match the original meaning.
No translation is perfect. I'm not asking you what you do, I'm asking you how you know what translations are correct, and how can we know? And such as "lost in translation" doesn't only apply to the Bible or going from one language to another, but it even burdens the understanding of Shakespeare because even the English language has changed a lot in just the past few hundred years.

 

[Grandliseur]

They don't all say the same thing though. The KJV, for example, does not explicitly state homosexuality. Some of them do. It's because of the debate over a word that isn't easily translated or understood in contemporary Western understandings of sexuality that is explicitly one-or-the-other. Really, when they wrote "man who lies with a man as he would a woman," they were using the best understanding at the the time, and when it was written not even heterosexuality was known or understood. It's only with today's perceptions and understandings that modern translations can say "homosexual," because the original word doesn't describe it "homosexual" as we know it. Witch is another word where changes in cultural attitudes has shifted how that word is interpreted and understood, and doesn't really match the original meaning.
No translation is perfect. I'm not asking you what you do, I'm asking you how you know what translations are correct, and how can we know? And such as "lost in translation" doesn't only apply to the Bible or going from one language to another, but it even burdens the understanding of Shakespeare because even the English language has changed a lot in just the past few hundred years.

Each translation has its own shortcomings. You have to study things deeply when something happens in a study to give cause for taking things to a deeper level. At times, I go to the Greek version (ancient one, not modern) At times, I go to the interlinear Hebrew English. It is at times indicated. The scripture that says about God that 'I am that I am' is a poor rendering of the interlinear Hebrew. It is what makes study fun.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is what makes study fun.

I agreeing studying is fun. However, describing methodology doesn't provide evidence. You've done the research, now what are the results?

 

[Grandliseur]

I agreeing studying is fun. However, describing methodology doesn't provide evidence. You've done the research, now what are the results?

I already told you what Bible I use online and off line. In the example of God's name's description, I went online for the best answer, the Hebrew English interlinear Bible material.

In some cases my knowledge of the rest of the Bible assists me in picking what cannot be correct translations and picking what clearly is the most accurate. It is a case by case thing.