Is Adultery & Prostitution sexually immoral?

[Nada]

So, are all these arguments being used to diminish the importance of the text, relative to others, in the bible? What is that in the text that disturbs you?

No.Nothing at all disturbs me.If you read the OP,I stated that I was having a discussion with a person who stated that Adultery and Prostitution were not considered sexually immoral.I of course know that it is according to God's word.I started this forum to get some feedback from other christians to see what they thought about the matter.The story that occurs in John 8:1-11 is another matter.I was just pointing out to the sister who was telling me about the adulterous in it this story that it is omitted from the holy scriptures because it does not appear in the earlier manuscripts of the new testament.

 

[Nada]

Some definitions might be helpful to this discussion:

Prostitution: is when a man or woman offers themselves indiscriminately for sexual intercourse for hire; a harlot. The Hebrew word for prostitute is zoh·nah′, while its Greek equivalent is por′ne
Mosaic law says; “Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals.” (Le 19:29

Fornication: Illicit sex relations outside of Scriptural marriage. The Hebrew verb za·nah′ and its related forms convey the idea of harlotry, immoral intercourse, fornication, or prostitution.

Adultery: As used in the Bible generally refers to voluntary sexual intercourse by a married person with one of the opposite sex other than one’s mate.

Morality: the principles or rules of right and wrong conduct
Immorality: the violation of moral principles or patterns of conduct usually accepted as right behavior.

Thanks for your response.This is what I posted yesterday in the #295 post in the
"What is sexually immoral?" forum in the sexuality section.I also pointed out poerneia,porneuo and zanah.

 

[melk]

The story that occurs in John 8:1-11 is another matter.I was just pointing out the sister who was telling me about the adulterous in it that this story is omitted from the holy scriptures because it does not appear in the earlier manuscripts of the new testament.

yes, you were answering the post below, that emphasizes the importance of judging the sin, instead of the sinner. And you surely tried to depreciate the text used for support.

Even people who practice sin "regularly", as in Rahab's case, can do things that are good as well. No one, not even in the Bible, is a 100% sin. I believe the sin is more judged than the sinner; even as Jesus stepped in a saved a woman caught in adultery and ate with "sinners", as well.

 

[Nada]

yes, you were answering the post below, that emphasizes the importance of judging the sin, instead of the sinner. And you surely tried to depreciate the text used for support.

Depreciate the text for support? I don't think I understand?

 

[Nada]

yes, you were answering the post below, that emphasizes the importance of judging the sin, instead of the sinner. And you surely tried to depreciate the text used for support.

I didn't try to depreciate the text.I merely pointed out that John 8:1-11 is omitted from most bibles because it does not appear in earlier manuscripts.That is why most bibles have *footnotes where these passages are supposed to appear.Some exclude them entirely.

"The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. It is also the earliest surviving Latin manuscript to contain it; 17 of the 23 Old Latin manuscripts of John 7-8 contain at least part of the Pericope."


Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John 8:1-11 does not appear in the Syriac Pe****ta which dates back to the 2nd or 3rd century A.D.

 

[melk]

 

[Nada]

 

[Nada]

The Spurious Passage at John 7:53–8:11. These 12 verses have obviously been added to the original text of John’s Gospel. They are not found in the Sinaitic Manuscript or the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, though they do appear in the fifth-century Codex Bezae and later Greek manuscripts. They are omitted, however, by most of the early versions. It is evident that they are not part of John’s Gospel. One group of Greek manuscripts places this passage at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts it after Luke 21:38, supporting the conclusion that it is a spurious and uninspired text.

John, Good News According to — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[melk]

The Spurious Passage at John 7:53–8:11. These 12 verses have obviously been added to the original text of John’s Gospel. They are not found in the Sinaitic Manuscript or the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, though they do appear in the fifth-century Codex Bezae and later Greek manuscripts. They are omitted, however, by most of the early versions. It is evident that they are not part of John’s Gospel. One group of Greek manuscripts places this passage at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts it after Luke 21:38, supporting the conclusion that it is a spurious and uninspired text.

John, Good News According to — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I think there is more than that. Just admitting you are right, and the text has no veridicous basis, is there a reason for you to bring it to this thread? Unless it contradicts your beliefs, mainly on how to treat sin and sinners.
I think our beliefs are not just picked up from a sacred book. It has to make make sense to us, otherwise we are not going to be transformed, but raped. And to me, whatever you may say, John 8, 1-11 will always be one of the most relevant passages of the bible.

 

[pearl]

Even people who practice sin "regularly", as in Rahab's case, can do things that are good as well. No one, not even in the Bible, is a 100% sin. I believe the sin is more judged than the sinner; even as Jesus stepped in a saved a woman caught in adultery and ate with "sinners", as well.

There are four women included in Matthew's genealogy of the Messiah who would be considered sinners.
irregular union with partners, women who played a role in God's plan, the instrument of His Holy Spirit.
Tamar made it possible for Israel to come to the promised land, Rahab was a prostitute but she made it possible
for Israel to come to the promised land, Ruth and Boaz without such union the Davidic line might not have come to be.
Through Bathsheba and David their son Solomon succeeded David. Seen as the work of the Holy Spirit Matthew
combines scandalous union with divine intervention.

 

[pearl]

So, are all these arguments being used to diminish the importance of the text, relative to others, in the bible? What is that in the text that disturbs you?

True, this is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts. It contains many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage. May have been inserted here due to the allusion to Jer 17:13., 'I do not judge anyone'. However, the Catholic Church accepts it as canonical Scripture.

 

[pearl]

And to me, whatever you may say, John 8, 1-11 will always be one of the most relevant passages of the bible.

Good point, that's why it remains part of the Canon. It may have been an old story of Jesus' mercy towards sinners, that was independent of the Gospels and was not included until there was a change in the church's reluctance to forgive adultery.

 

[Nada]

I think there is more than that. Just admitting you are right, and the text has no veridicous basis, is there a reason for you to bring it to this thread? Unless it contradicts your beliefs, mainly on how to treat sin and sinners.
I think our beliefs are not just picked up from a sacred book. It has to make make sense to us, otherwise we are not going to be transformed, but raped. And to me, whatever you may say, John 8, 1-11 will always be one of the most relevant passages of the bible.

I'm not admitting I am right brother.I am pointing out the facts.There is a difference.You are asking me if there is a reason why I am bringing it to this thread and the answer is obvious.I told you already in a previous comment earlier.You even quoted the comment that I replied to about it.I will tell you again.A woman brought up the story in John 8:1-11 about an adulterous woman.This thread is about ADULTERY and Prostitution.I merely pointed out to the sister the truth about that passage, as I have come to know it ,according to the holy scriptures.She is a christian and I am a christian.This is a christian DIR.

Now,I am sorry you feel differently about the matter ,but the fact of the matter is that this passage does not occur in the earlier manuscripts.Whether you agree with it or not,it is what it is.Another thing is that according to the holy scriptures,God's word,only He can make you understand what is in HIS sacred writings.It is by grace alone that one comes to understand.Only He can bestow this upon you.No amount of school or training can help you understand the word of God unless He allows it.So with this being said,what you said about,
"It has to make make sense to us, otherwise we are not going to be transformed, but raped.", has nothing to do with what God says in the holy scriptures.This is an opinion that has no biblical backing.One cannot make sense of it alone using their own human reasoning or understanding.One cannot try to understand godly wisdom using human wisdom.

I see you have an attachment to the passage in John 8:1-11. I am sorry brother.To you it may be relevant, as you say,but to christians who know the truth,it is an omitted passage, that is not in the earlier manuscripts.This is a fact,and the truth.

 

[Nada]

Good point, that's why it remains part of the Canon.

It does not remain part of the canon.It is present in some writings with a *footnote in most bibles telling the reader that it does not appear in earlier manuscripts.Some bibles omit it entirely.If you do some thorough research you will find this to be true.The Vatican pushes this story in their bible.You can see who is preaching truth and who is not.

 

[Nada]

I think there is more than that. Just admitting you are right, and the text has no veridicous basis, is there a reason for you to bring it to this thread? Unless it contradicts your beliefs, mainly on how to treat sin and sinners.
I think our beliefs are not just picked up from a sacred book. It has to make make sense to us, otherwise we are not going to be transformed, but raped. And to me, whatever you may say, John 8, 1-11 will always be one of the most relevant passages of the bible.

Veridicous? Do you mean veridical, coming from the Latin word veridicus ,meaning truthful or truth telling?

 

[melk]

Veridicous? Do you mean veridical, coming from the Latin word veridicus ,meaning truthful or truth telling?

The text may not be veridical in the meaning of having happened, but it is veridical on revealing the character of Jesus. My thought.
Sorry for my poor english.

 

[Thruve]

The people who voted no will Vote yes when they get cheated on =)
We will see how immoral they feel it is then.

 

[Nada]

The text may not be veridical in the meaning of having happened, but it is veridial on revealing the character of Jesus. My thought.
Sorry for my poor english.

No problem brother,I am no scholar.
I see what you mean about how one may see it as pointing out how Jesus was with people, but we have to keep in mind that it is not in the inspired word of God.That's the whole point.I like the story myself and think it is well written but if it is not part of the original text,then it is not inspired by God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

So words that have been placed in the holy scriptures that God did not inspire will not be alive for they have no power by the holy spirit.

 

[pearl]

It does not remain part of the canon.It is present in some writings with a *footnote in most bibles telling the reader that it does not appear in earlier manuscripts.Some bibles omit it entirely.If you do some thorough research you will find this to be true.The Vatican pushes this story in their bible.You can see who is preaching truth and who is not.

It remains in the original Canon. Various denominations have of course discarded what differed from their belief. Better to
err on the side of caution than toss something that may have very well been inspired but independently of the Gospels. Truth is found in the entirety, as verses relate to the whole, not as an individual pericope.

 

[Nada]

It remains in the original Canon. Various denominations have of course discarded what differed from their belief. Better to
err on the side of caution than toss something that may have very well been inspired but independently of the Gospels.

But there is no more original canon.There are only copies.The earliest manuscripts do not have them in there.It is evident that it was later added into the holy scriptures.This passage is not God inspired.Please read post #25 and post #28.