• I really appreciated your delight in God's creation. As I read this passage today, I wondered what your thoughts are on applying this liberty to "lust-free" masturbation. I have been discussing this with several other believers and wonder if masturbation can be redeemed from the lustful idolatry to which it is usually bound. What are your thoughts?
    1.  — Edited

      To Ben Clark comment about "lust-free..." in N. T. Wright (trying to keep this as holy as possible, an untriggering as possible) ;) - Read Out of the Shadows by Hazelten press. It is an eye opener. I was raised on "victimless crime stuff". Every single person who became addicted, created victims. You clearly are not familiar with the Joshua Duggar story. HE discovered the "victimless crime act" accidentally and then went on to do unspeakable things that created victims. My father was a victim. I was a victim. Please, read in the New Testament where it says that your body is her's and her body is yours. There is no such thing as "not a lustful, selfish" act when you are violating that verse in the New Testament. Sorry, but I forget exactly where it is located. My point is that the "victimless crime act" created addiction which leads to victims. It matters not whether it was done "with the right frame of mind" or not. Stage 3 as illustrated in the book Out of the Shadows is not a stage you want to be in. The colour red and a particular item of clothing is not what a male should have in their possession. If this is what is had, then you are quite likely at stage 3 and needing help, according to the book. You do not want to be in Stage 2 either, as it still isn't Biblical in my opinion. (I will not discuss this further. Thank you!) [MODS: I am fine with this post being deleted OR edited IF the other post was also deleted (as that post mentioned a word I will not post here)!!! Thank you!!!! ]
  • Does the text in Matthew 23:37 speak of or imply a farmyard fire? I don't see it. "One of Jesus’ most vivid illustrations concerns the hen and the chickens caught in a farmyard fire." Tom Wright, Matthew for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 16-28 (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004), 108.
    1. I've checked multiple commentaries and even a web page discussing "broody hens," and it seems that N. T. Wright is alone in specifying a "farmyard fire" as the danger from which the hen is protecting her chicks. According to that page on broody hens, a hen will gather her chicks under her wings when "danger approaches" -- any danger, from any source, not just fire. So Wright seems to be filling in with his own storytelling flourish here, unless he has some unmentioned Second Temple source that uses similar language and includes a farmyard fire as a detail.
    2. I would hunch Mr Wright is using some reference he has not sited in his commentary.
  • I just love the fact that our God used a Pagan magi, who would be worse than Samaritans to travel a long distance, bring gifts, fall on their face and worship Jesus. I wonder if He used them because nobody else was willing to listen and obey God's calling. God is not about who is in and who is out, He used these people to take part of the prophecy which would forever be etched in time. I Love our ireligious, boundary breaking God.
    1. I always thought God did it because, he is able to break into and to overshadow any religion, astrology or "heathen" nation, and without affirming it. But - abit like Paul on Areopagos. He breaks into the unknown. And abit like John 3,16: He is for the whole world. He can command every false prophet to speak right. He break into any false astrology system, and use their system for them selves, as a way to abolish it: Who needs astrology after Jesus have come with Peace for the Whole Earth ? And lastly: the heathen was invited at his birth, because he was king of all the nations. And yes - I think you are right. Nobody else was willing to go, that is especially true of these times, and probably also then.
    2. Yes, and all that He does is centered out of His love. So while hypothetically He could break into and overshadow, His love would lead Him to not coerce. Romans 8:28, He works all things together, or synergy. Not addition rather multiplication in harmonizing even the bad and the sinful to bring the best. “Looking for the jewel. amongst the rubbish”
  • Brilliant! And hauntingly true. The lamb will conquer them, of course, by the same method by which he has always conquered: by his own blood, and by the blood of his own, the martyrs who remain faithful
    1. jesus answers the time question, briefly. he develops the restore the kingdom "to israel" assumption that they make with a statement. since Christ has completed his work through israel, carry this information out to those that benefit, to the world, fulfilling my promise to Abraham. Luke continues to illustrate this task thought the rest of this volume 2 of his Gospel story.
      1. Is the new marriage covenant between believers and God? Or is it between God the Father and God the son with believers being the brideprice? Covenant must involve promises as a believer I make no promises as my salvation is totally by grace which works through my faith.
        1. English is not my first language, but I was taught that “God” (the Creator and the Father of Jesus) is to be written with capital letter. I am reading now your book „The New Testament and the People of God”. It is disturbing to me and bothers me a lot that you write “god” instead of “God”, even if this pertains to the true God. Why?
          1.  thank you for this insight!
          2.  — Edited

            @Fred Sprinkle Thank you for inserting the author’s clarification. I read it together with the preceding paragraph I insert below: “Second, I have frequently used ‘god’ instead of ‘God’. This is not a printer’s error, nor is it a deliberate irreverence; rather the opposite, in fact. The modern usage, without the article and with a capital, seems to me actually dangerous. This usage, which sometimes amounts to regarding ‘God’ as the proper name of the Deity, rather than as essentially a common noun, implies that all users of the word are monotheists and, within that, that all monotheists believe in the same god. Both these propositions seem to me self-evidently untrue. It may or may not be true that any worship of any god is translated by some mysterious grace into worship of one god who actually exists, and who happens to be the only god. That is believed by some students of religion. It is not, however, believed by very many practitioners of the mainline monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or of the non-monotheistic ones (Hinduism, Buddhism and their cognates). Certainly the Jews and Christians of the first century did not believe it. They believed that pagans worshipped idols, or even demons. (The question as to how Jews and Christians regarded each other’s beliefs on this topic will be addressed in Part V of the present volume.) ”  n.t.wright: “The early Christians used the phrase ‘the god’ (ho theos) of this god, and this was (I believe) somewhat polemical, making an essentially Jewish-monotheistic point over against polytheism. In a world where there were many suns, one would not say ‘the sun’.” I checked in the Greek grammars. I translate from German: „The article before θεός doesn't mean in NT “the God” (a certain, well known one among many others), but simply ‘God’ (the only One). Why is the article in NT there while we omit it? The people in the ancient world believed in many gods. Through the article used, the only God stood from them out. In the West influenced by the Christendom, thinking of God, we think of the only and true God. That is why we leave the article out.” (W. Stoy, K. Haag and W. Haubeck, “Bibel Griechisch leicht gemacht“, p. 33). This is an excerpt from an English book: „John 3:10 ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ ᾽Ισραήλ - the teacher of Israel  There were many teachers of Israel, but Nicodemus was either well known or, if the article is par excellence, the number one professor on the Gallup poll! Often ‘the gospel’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) and ‘the Lord’ (ὁ κύριος) employ articles par excellence. In other words, there was only one gospel and one Lord worth mentioning as far as the early Christians were concerned.” And in the footnote he writes: “ὁ θεός also may be regarded as par excellence rather than monadic in many contexts. This is not to say that to the NT writers there were many gods, but that there were many entities and beings called θεός. Only one truly deserved the name.” (Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”, p. 223) @Terry Wildman We have to remember that the first manuscripts until 9th century were uncial. “About the beginning of the 9th cent. a new style of script was introduced (known as ‘minuscule’)” (Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). In “The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church” (3rd ed. rev., p. 1037). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.). “Uncial” this means that all the letters were capital. Only from the beginning of the 9th century the manuscripts were minuscule – in small letters.
          3.  — Edited

            @Placyd Thanks for the correction, however the effect is the same. It is interesting that the definite article might be the designator, but I am not sure that is always the case.
        2. Rev 12:5, "She gave birth to ... one who was to shepherd (Gr) all the nations with a rod of iron." When it comes right down to it, Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, is no soft pushover. Humanity is demanded to come to his terms not his theirs. "Every knee shall bow." Isn't it beautiful to live in this age of voluntary servanthood?!
          1. started a discussion


            Are there any here who has had their understanding of imputation of Christ Righousness molded throught NT Wrights teachings?