Help & Hope for Homosexuals

thetruthsetsyoufree

23 Aug 08, 15:44

Originally posted by copenhagen:

Made an account just to enter this topic because I do think we might be getting somewhere here

First of all, I am not pro-gay, but neither am I anti-gay. I think, in terms of sexuality, it should be a personal choice and no one should have the right to force them to change, just like I believe religion is a personal choice and parents should not force their religion onto their children. And yes, I am a Dawkins fan

On the subtopic of is the bible, for the lack of a better word, obsolete in it's laws, I completely agree with lucasstriker. It is obsolete and christians can not win an arguement of this magnitude simply because they themselves don't practice every law. Although lucasstriker was quite blunt in his delivery (funny but still blunt), he makes an excellent point on relying more on our morals than the book itself, thus proving that we do not need God to have morals (a hotly debated issue). For example, you don't stone people just because the bible tells you to do it, your morals wouldn't agree with that. This should be proof that our morals are independent of a belief in God.

Although, I am not saying the bible is empty of beauty. I believe it is a great piece of literature filled with poetic grace and elegance. The golden rule of "not doing unto others which you would not like done to yourself" is a very beautiful rule indeed. That's why I am happy when pastors preach them to children. I think it's great that the less desirable parts of the bible are as lucasstriker put it, "substantially ignored" or "taken as metaphors". This selectivity is what differentiates us from the barbarians of the past, we are selective in what we wish to incorporate into our lives.

That is why homosexuality shouldn't be condemned. I ask you, why is it so hard to ignore that law?

copenhagen

My response is that sexuality is what nature or God has made us to be. What is natural is what functions according to its design. So homosexuality is unnatural for me because it is biologically and psychologically incompatible.

Of course, it makes much sense if you say that sexuality is of one's choice or preference. My stand is that a homosexual must know the truth about the unnaturalness of homosexuality and may that truth set him free. My position is that the homosexual can exercise his right of choice, and to use his freedom to choose heterosexuality. But this freedom can only come about by the Truth.

A homosexual can choose or prefer to remain a homosexual. Nobody can force him. I am not forcing homosexuals to change. I am simply making an effort to tell the Truth behind homosexuality and pray that there are homosexuals who agree with me. I hope that God's Truth will set homosexuals from the bondage of sin. I wish to convince and persuade homosexuals that homosexuality is unnatural.

When homosexuals have UNWANTED homosexual thoughts, feelings, and desires, they WANT to change but they may not know how to. So my website ( http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/ ) is to provide help and hope for these homosexuals who are repentant.

The Bible, perhaps specifically the Old Testament, is not "obsolete" (whatever that means!). Christians believe that God's Word is relevant to our day-to-day reality and our faith.

However, one must STUDY the Bible carefully and diligently to understand the implications, and particular to our case here, the Laws of the Old Testament. The Old Testament laws are threefold --- civil, ceremonial and moral. The civil and ceremonial Laws may or may not be applicable, but the moral Laws are definitely still applicable to modern Christianity. The moral Laws are universal and timeless, such as the Ten Commandments, and therefore not "obsolete."

Of course Christians do not obey all the Laws.

From what I understand about God's Law in the Old Testament, it is like a primary school teacher who helps young kids to understand what faith is about and with Jesus Christ's death and resurrection in the New Testament, the Gospel is like an university professor enlightening adults to live out their faith based on what the primary school teachers have established during their childhood.

Galatians 3: 23-25 (KJV)
"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

Therefore, when you say "that law is a relic from the past", I hope you are not implying that it is obsolete and hence irrelevant to what we believe of God's Word.

Our Christian faith and religion is still very much built on God's Law in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ Himself says this in

Matthew 5: 17 (ESV)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Essentially, God's Law can be summed up by the following:

Galatians 5: 14 (ESV)
"For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The Law is split into three aspects: the moral, the ceremonial and the civil. The moral Law is universal and timeless, such as the Ten Commandments.

As homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, we must not ignore the Law but see it as a consistent manifestation of God's character.

Therefore, Christians ARE SELECTIVE, in a certain sense, as to how they understand, interpret and apply the Bible to their lives. We Christians are not "barbarians from the past." We believe and know that homosexuality is STILL condemned by God. In order to greater appreciate what I mean, please read the following three articles from my website:

Linguistic Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as "Homosexuals"
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/linguistic-grounds-for-translating-arsenokoitai-as-homosexuals/

Historical Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as "Homosexuals"
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/historical-grounds-for-translating-arsenokoitai-as-homosexuals/

The Pauline Origin for Arsenokoitai
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/the-pauline-origin-of-arsenokoitai/

For more information on homosexuality, please visit: http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/

thetruthsetsyoufree

23 Aug 08, 15:54

In response to copenhagen

For example, you don't stone people just because the bible tells you to do it, your morals wouldn't agree with that. This should be proof that our morals are independent of a belief in God.

We Christians "don't stone people just because" the Bible tells us to do it. We abide by the principles of Love and we enjoy the Christian liberty to act as the principles of Love guide and lead us. The absolute moral truths are universal and timeless, but its manifestation / execution / application may differ from era to era, or culture to culture. So Christians ought to abide by the principles of Love. This is not about stoning or not. The issue here is more of, perhaps, at least in the Old Testamental Jewish context, why stone?

Although, I am not saying the bible is empty of beauty. I believe it is a great piece of literature filled with poetic grace and elegance.

If you acknowledge that the Bible is a great work of art, then you must not take the Word of God at face value. Often many read the Bible and draw surface meanings and conclusions. Do bear in mind that you will need to understand and know the three original languages Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek in order to greater appreciate the significance of the Bible. This is in the academic field of hermeneutics.

That is why homosexuality shouldn't be condemned. I ask you, why is it so hard to ignore that law?

To ignore what law?

For more information, please visit http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/

nightdragon

23 Aug 08, 16:56

Just a question, so from what I see in your website, its just believing in god and the homosexuals will stop being confuse and free of temptations of going back to the old path? Or maybe they should get physical counseling instead of religion and encouragements from friends and family to continue their non-homosexual ways?

Being a Christian, it’s all base on trust and hope and prayers. Why not create and mold your own future by doing something practical. Base on science and man who is at the very least able to carry you out of the burning ditch.

We should not be using religion to address such issues. These issues should be held physically. Religion is use to show us a path and a proper way to lead life. For us and your future generations. Allah.

LucasStriker

23 Aug 08, 18:29

In response to copenhagen's comment on my words being "blunt", I concede I might have injected alittle too much sarcasm. This nagging topic on homosexuality drives me up the wall sometimes. And I'm familiar with Dawkin's work. I'm more of a Christopher Hitchens guy though, but their both similar in several aspects =)

Now thetruthsetsyoufree, you are right about one thing. I would disagree with you on the Bible's doctrinal consistency. In fact, I can quote one evidence of the Bible's inconsistency with a reference to the very law stated on Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 (which I did not take out of context; will explain later). I'm studying for my exams now so I won't go scouring the Bible for the verse and chapter (was it John 8:?-?) but I believe we'r all already very familiar with the much celebrated story about the poor woman taken for adultery and dragged before Jesus by the Jewish Pharisees who demanded to know if he agreed with the Mosaic punishment of stoning her to death. If he did not, he would have violated the law. If he did, he made nonsense of his own preachings. Anyone who's heard this story could imagine the crowd, evil in their eyes, all ready to pounce on this helpless little girl. And then came Jesus's cool reply: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". Nice.

But what's wrong with this story? Well, it not only contradicts the history of Mosaic law, it contradicts the Bible itself (or rather the old testament; Deuteronomy 22: 23-24). Mosaic law states clearly that both man and woman who commited adultery must be stoned. Yet, the man was never mentioned and was never dragged to the public for stoning. Well, as any good novelist would know, a damsel in distress is the perfect ploy a hero needs to shine. And boy, did he shine. Oh and before you start saying that I can't make such a statement because I don't study Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, Barton Ehrman, now holder of the chair in religious studies, is fluent in both Greek and Hebrew and he was the man who brought the world's attention to this very contradiction (to the dissaproval of his religious "friends"). There are several contradictions like these, just a couple of examples are some of Luke and Matthew's statements and the Bible's wrong mention of the rulership at the time.

And I never took the verses out of context. Saying that it's fine to stone a married woman just because she was raped within city walls (and did not scream; or probably did scream but who's screams weren't heard) is absolutely barbaric and insane. And it does agree with a rapist's nature of blaming it on the fact that the victim had "asked for it". No woman wishes to be raped, and if screaming is the only yardstick that differentiates between rape and consensual sex then I submit to you again that the laws of the bible are archaic.

I do not know Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic but even the ones who do can't seem to place the right meaning behind the words of the Bible. You must agree with me on this for how do you account for the numerous versions of the Bible out there? If everything is to be "drawn from the surface" and not to be taken literally, then I submit to you that the Bible is no different than a fairy tale. From Red Riding Hood for example, we don't elaborate on the M18 part of the story when the wolfs head is chopped off by the woodsman. We go into the poetic values the story teaches us. If all you have to defend the Bible is literature of metaphysical weight then you win, I cannot fight you on that. I agree with copenhagen that it is a beautiful work of art. But we must not take it to be facts and laws of logic.

I am not saying that helping homosexuals change for the better is wrong (though I would ask if it is so unnatural and wrong to be one in the first place; many animals are capable of homosexual play). Homosexual acts in Singapore are actually already illegal, there is no need to bring religious laws into the mix. And religion isn't the answer to everything either, especially not when it comes to stopping homosexuality. It might even have the opposite effect. We've seen proof of that time and time again. Pedophilic priests molesting altar boys. AIDS being seen as a punishment from God for the existence of gays (though being lesbian apparently lowers your chances of getting AIDS substantially). I would say more, but I wouldn't be hundred percent certain if religion was the major cause of the rising number of gays in Singapore. Personally, I think LKY's speech had alot to do with it as well. But that's a debate for another time.

I would end with my earlier statement. That laws from the Bible are archaic and shouldn't be taken as the ultimate truth.

"In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides." Heinrich Heine, Gedanken und Einfalle

thetruthsetsyoufree

23 Aug 08, 21:52

Originally posted by nightdragon:

Just a question, so from what I see in your website, its just believing in god and the homosexuals will stop being confuse and free of temptations of going back to the old path? Or maybe they should get physical counseling instead of religion and encouragements from friends and family to continue their non-homosexual ways?

Being a Christian, it’s all base on trust and hope and prayers. Why not create and mold your own future by doing something practical. Base on science and man who is at the very least able to carry you out of the burning ditch.

We should not be using religion to address such issues. These issues should be held physically. Religion is use to show us a path and a proper way to lead life. For us and your future generations. Allah.

nightdragon

1. My website The Truth Sets You Free seeks to offer help and hope for struggling homosexuals with their unwanted homosexual thoughts, feelings and desires.

2. I assume that most of these struggling homosexuals are Christians, and that they see homosexuality as irreconciliable with their religion.

3. In other words, I seek to reach out to Christian homosexuals.

4. This is a Christian forum, so I hope that this is an appropriate portal to do so.

5. However, The Truth Sets You Free also offers help and hope for Christians who are not of the Christian faith.

6. While it is true that the website has many Christian pastoral articles, it also has a good number of secular scientific essays. These essays are mostly based on psychotherapy, or specifically psychoanalytic theories.

7. Non-Christian homosexuals who WANT to change can refer to these secular scientific essays. But my mission is to also evangelise them and spread the Gospel.

8. Ultimately, The Truth Sets You Free caters to homosexuals, whether Christian or not, who wish to change but do not know HOW to. So the objective is to essentially provide the help and hope to encourage and motivate them to change.

9. As prescribed by Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, the best way for a homosexual to change is through religious pastoral counselling as well as psychotherapy --- a combination of faith and science. I adopt this position in my website.

10. Of course, change also comes about with gender affirmation through family and friends. So the "success" of the homosexual's recovery will go beyond just the pastoral counselling and psychotherapy. The homosexual's willpower and determination also matter.

11. Once again, for clarification's sake, this is a Christian forum. I believe, or assume, that most readers here are Christians and hope that within religious grounds, I am only doing what is most fitting.

thetruthsetsyoufree

23 Aug 08, 22:31

LucasStriker

And I'm familiar with Dawkin's work. I'm more of a Christopher Hitchens guy though, but their both similar in several aspects =)

I have heard of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens but I know nothing about their works.

Yet, the man was never mentioned and was never dragged to the public for stoning.

This is true. The Pharisees favoured the man, a member of their own sex, and discriminated against the woman. (Can we say that the Pharisees were misogynist and sexist? Since the Jewish society was patriarchical, maybe we can speculate it to be so?)

The Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus Christ by putting him in a moral dilemma. So they dragged the adulteress out and sought an answer from Jesus.

Mosaic law states clearly that both man and woman who commited adultery must be stoned.

Correct.

But what's wrong with this story? Well, it not only contradicts the history of Mosaic law, it contradicts the Bible itself

Why does this incident contradict the Old Testament, or perhaps specifically the Mosaic Law?

Jesus Christ did not say that the man (or adulterer) should not be punished. Jesus did not endorse or advocate that only the woman (or adulteress) be punished.

Jesus merely responded to the situation as it was --- the circumstance was that the Pharisees only dragged the adulteress out for confrontation. Why the man was absent, we are not told.

But Barton Ehrman must not assume that Jesus contradicted the Old Testament, or perhaps specifically the Mosaic Law.

Well, as any good novelist would know, a damsel in distress is the perfect ploy a hero needs to shine. And boy, did he shine.

Interesting point. C.S. Lewis (author of Chronicles of Narnia) commented that the Gospels, though historically "archaic" as you would put it, were actually an unique literary achievement in its era.

C.S. Lewis was a Fellow and Tutor in English literature at Oxford university until 1954 when he was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. So Lewis knew quite a fair bit about literary criticism, and he had something to say about the incident.

Lewis believes that the Gospels were true, but not simply because he was a man of Christian faith, but as a literature professor, he found the fact that a seemingly insignificant or banal act such as "Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground" (John 8: 6) intriguing.

Why was this act of Jesus intriguing to Lewis?

First of all, such literary style of writing was unheard of in that era. In other words, minor or unimportant details such as this would not be included in fiction before and during Jesus' time. All stories, fables or allegories did not bear such literary mark. Lewis found this intriguing because he knew that such a literary style of writing was modern.

Quoting a person online:

C.S. Lewis noted this detail, and took it as proof that the story was true – his logic being that the detail has no narrative point, and he was prepared to guarantee that it was impossible that it could be a bit of random fake-verisimilitude, because such things were unheard-of at that time, said he.

Next, the Gospels were essentially eye-witness accounts by the Apostles. So the Apostles documented everything they saw and heard and wrote them down from memory.

Since the Gospels could not be written as a story, fable or allegory by any person living in that era, and since the Gospels were eye-witness accounts, the Gospels are true and real.

Oh and before you start saying that I can't make such a statement because I don't study Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic

I'm afraid that knowledge of the Greek will be helpful.

The original Greek means that Jesus deferred judgment.

Jesus didn't say to the adulteress, "Forget it. It's no big deal." What he meant was: "I am not going to pass judgment on you now. Go out and live a different life and do what you can to become a different person."

In other words, Jesus was not discounting the Mosaic Law. Jesus did not mean to contradict the Mosaic Law. But Jesus was illustrating and reinforcing the fact that the time has come where all will be saved by grace, not good works.

Jesus Christ, the beloved Son sent by our Heavenly Father, would die on the cross and rise on the third day to pay the ransom of our sins and take away the wrath of God.

I am not saying that helping homosexuals change for the better is wrong (though I would ask if it is so unnatural and wrong to be one in the first place; many animals are capable of homosexual play).

Human beings are not animals. Human beings, unlike animals, are self conscious as well as spiritual and moral beings. In the Genesis account, God made the animals separately from mankind. God breathed into Adam the soul, which animals do not have.

I suggest you read this article from my website:

Is Homosexuality Really Unnatural?
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/gay-birds-and-bees-is-homosexuality-really-unnatural/

copenhagen

24 Aug 08, 11:07

Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree:

Human beings are not animals. Human beings, unlike animals, are self conscious as well as spiritual and moral beings. In the Genesis account, God made the animals separately from mankind. God breathed into Adam the soul, which animals do not have.

I personally believe that humans are very much like animals. The only difference is that our prefrontal cortex is too large and that allows for concious thought (figuratively speaking; because animals DO have concious thoughts too) and that defines us as a higher species in that we have knowledge from right and wrong, and we can contemplate our own deaths (and fear it; this is why the promise of eternal life is so tempting). The belief that a soul is reason for concious thought, is ludicrous. We've seen people who's brains are partially damaged forget persons they've know all their lives. The person then retains all other memories except for the ones lost from the damage (does this mean his soul has fractured?). At the extreme end of the scale, we've seen people lose all conciousness when they are completely brain dead. If our soul is our conciousness then why would that happen? Do we lose our souls when our brain dies? We all know how religious members speak of a tunnel of light from where we would see Grandma when we enter heaven. Well, logically speaking, we wouldn't even remember Grandma without a brain.

But this is the problem with religious arguements like these. While one side debate the metaphysical, the other debate the logical. While one believes God breathed a soul into humans the other believes in evolution and natural selection. This is a debate that's impossible to win because logic and the metaphysical can never completely disprove the other. "A verse doesn't really mean what it says" or "God loves us and he exists". These are claims we can never completely disprove no matter how many languages we know simply because it is too philosophical. Even atheists can never completely say with all certainty that there is no God, the same way we can never completely say with all certainty that there is no Santa Claus. I can however say I am 9.9/10 certain that there isn't a God, a Santa or a pink unicorn. No one should say they know anything with certainty and I know you can say you are 110% sure that God exists but you don't really know that. You can't know that. You can believe that there is a God (and believe it very strongly), but you can never know with all certainty that there is one. That's the essence of Pascal's Wager. That's the essence of blind faith. I hope you don't disagree with me on this because I think it's important to seperate faith and knowledge.

xaraikex

29 Aug 08, 00:08

to the truthsetsyoufree......

"Next, the Gospels were essentially eye-witness accounts by the Apostles. So the Apostles documented everything they saw and heard and wrote them down from memory.

Since the Gospels could not be written as a story, fable or allegory by any person living in that era, and since the Gospels were eye-witness accounts, the Gospels are true and real."

http://bible.cc/luke/7-39.htm

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. (KJV)

Could the author of Luke read minds? Hmmm...

I forsee the apologist saying: Look at the NIV....the NRSV....they say: "Said to himself..."

http://scripturetext.com/luke/7-39.htm

Ahem....heres the original GREEK text.

"<< Luke 7:39 >>

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it he spake within himself saying This man if he were a prophet __ would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him for she is a sinner."

Which historian reads minds?

This omniscient dictation of events clearly points towards a form of storytelling.

thetruthsetsyoufree

29 Aug 08, 11:25

Originally posted by xaraikex:

to the truthsetsyoufree......

"Next, the Gospels were essentially eye-witness accounts by the Apostles. So the Apostles documented everything they saw and heard and wrote them down from memory.

Since the Gospels could not be written as a story, fable or allegory by any person living in that era, and since the Gospels were eye-witness accounts, the Gospels are true and real."

http://bible.cc/luke/7-39.htm

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. (KJV)

Could the author of Luke read minds? Hmmm...

I forsee the apologist saying: Look at the NIV....the NRSV....they say: "Said to himself..."

http://scripturetext.com/luke/7-39.htm

Ahem....heres the original GREEK text.

"<< Luke 7:39 >>

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it he spake within himself saying This man if he were a prophet __ would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him for she is a sinner."

Which historian reads minds?

This omniscient dictation of events clearly points towards a form of storytelling.

xaraikex

In a sense, you are right when you say that the Gospels is a "form of storytelling." Most, including some Christians themselves, may not be aware of the fact that the Gospels were not written first despite their initial sequential positions in the New Testament. The Gospels were actually written a couple of decades after Jesus Christ's resurrection and ascension. Therefore the early Christians could only rely on the apostles' epistles (such as Romans, Peter, James etc.) as prescriptive documents of spiritual authority which provide guidance and insights on how to live a life pleasing unto God.

In Jesus' time, most were illiterate. And the oral tradition was still prevalent and strong --- in other words, most teachings and doctrines would be passed from mouth to mouth across generations. But the apostles decided that a literary form of documentation ought to be established for future generations of Christians as a form of remembrance (kind of like the Lord's Supper/Communion?). So besides the oral tradition, there is also the written tradition of the Gospels so that the "story" or account of Jesus Christ will not be lost but preserved till the end of the ages.

Now, does this mean that the Gospels are a "form of storytelling?" I cannot decide. This also depends on how you define a "story" and "storytelling."

Throughout the New Testament, the apostles often affirm and reaffirm their status as eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ, who saw and touched and heard and spoke to Jesus Christ. This will imply, quite obviously and naturally, that the Gospels are also an eye-wtiness account of the "story" of Jesus Christ.

In a sense, we should not and must not doubt that the Gospels are a documentation of what the disciples saw and heard. The entire idea behind the Gospels being written by apostles (Matthew & John) or disciples of the apostles (Mark & Luke) is precisely the fact that they themselves had first hand experience and encounter of Jesus Christ and hence their accounts would be accurate etc. Otherwise, it may appear inconsistent or irrelevant that the apostles would spend considerable amount of effort convincing and reminding the early Christians that they were eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ and thus authenticate their authority to spread the Gospels through their epistles.

Having said that, I must not deny that I know nothing about Biblical Greek. I cannot provide a scholarly response to your reference to Strong's Greek. Having said that, based on Strong's Greek, the following is what I have found out:

"within" in Greek is en

en denotes a fixed state, intermediate between eis and ek

eis is a preposition that describes a motion, an arrival

ek is a preposition that describes a motion, a departure

since en is intermediate between eis and ek, en can refer to being still and stationary

"saying" in Greek is lego

lego is a verb that may mean relate in words

lego also has other comparisons such as:

1. epo means to say by word or writing

2. rheo means to speak or command or "pour forth"

3. laleo means to utter or preach

4. phemi means to show or make known one's thoughts

the above 4 comparisons suggest that lego means to relate verbally, particularly phemi

if we look at Luke 7: 39 again,

"he spake within (en) himself saying (lego)" could possibly be translated to "he muttered to himself" or perhaps "he thought to himself out loud"

en, as mentioned above, suggests motionless, being still and stationary. In this case, no words are moved or conveyed or transmitted to an audience except the Pharisee himself, and thus it is intermediate between eis and ek, which means that his words are not meant to arrive to another person or audience because his words never left himself. In other words, the Pharisee's words are meant for himself --- he is his own audience, and thus the words remain motionless, still and stationary. His words did not leave him to arrive at another person or audience.

lego probably suggests speech or utterance that can be heard because all other 4 comparisons (epo, rheo, laleo & phemi) suggest verbal and audible expressions.

So this is why I propose that "he said to himself" or even "muttered to himself" or "thought out loud" are possible translations.

-------

May all struggling homosexuals continue to persevere and fight a good fight of faith, and find help and hope in God.

http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com

domonkassyu

29 Aug 08, 11:34

Originally posted by xaraikex:

to the truthsetsyoufree......

"Next, the Gospels were essentially eye-witness accounts by the Apostles. So the Apostles documented everything they saw and heard and wrote them down from memory.

Since the Gospels could not be written as a story, fable or allegory by any person living in that era, and since the Gospels were eye-witness accounts, the Gospels are true and real."

http://bible.cc/luke/7-39.htm

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. (KJV)

Could the author of Luke read minds? Hmmm...

I forsee the apologist saying: Look at the NIV....the NRSV....they say: "Said to himself..."

http://scripturetext.com/luke/7-39.htm

Ahem....heres the original GREEK text.

"<< Luke 7:39 >>

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it he spake within himself saying This man if he were a prophet __ would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him for she is a sinner."

Which historian reads minds?

This omniscient dictation of events clearly points towards a form of storytelling.

the author of luke does read minds for God is a revealer of secrets.however the writer luke is not able to read minds.

xaraikex

30 Aug 08, 15:24

"

the author of luke does read minds for God is a revealer of secrets.however the writer luke is not able to read minds."

That is a contradiction.

xaraikex

30 Aug 08, 15:41

"So this is why I propose that "he said to himself" or even "muttered to himself" or "thought out loud" are possible translations."

In this case, 'spake within' is a compound. In this context, 'within' would mean within the Pharisee's own thoughts. From what I have read, 'en' is used in conjuction with other words, so Your translation of saying is useless as 'lego' is used AFTER the compound "spake within", which would mean the speech would be within his own mind.

"Epo en" is tantamount to saying inside himself.

By the way, your use of other greek words to guide your interpretation would be twisting the vey meaning of your translation.

By storytelling, I meant how the author seemed to have his eyes everywhere like an author of a novel. He could see the Pharisees bribing the guards of the tomb to say that Christians stole Jesus' body, the secret letter from Pilate's wife to Pilate, the returning of blood money by Judas to the Jews and give a full account of Jesus' temptation by the devil. Such omniscient narration is unlikely in a historical eyewitness account unless the gospel authors' had espionage rivalling the CIA's.

24/7

31 Aug 08, 08:37

Hi xaraikex,

if i go by ur reasoning, i guess i shld start to exalt John, the gospel writer, too because he started his gospel with "In the beginning" - means he existed before Adam / he was also with God right there before creation, as a "reporter" to record what was going on.

Back to Luke, if u read the first chapter of Luke, u see how he came about to writing his account - that of compiling the testimonies of those who have first hand experience. Among these people would include those who have heard Jesus speak and teach, hence Luke 5:22, Luke also knew what Jesus was thinking. Between 7:39 and 5:22, could Jesus not have explained to His disciples what had happened?

Maybe Luke didnt realize that centuries later, pp would be disputing his account, demanding the nitty gritty details that he should describe what happened between those two times. Because as John 21:25 says, if he wrote down EVERYTHING that Jesus did, u probably can set a world record in weightlifting by carrying the bible. HOWEVER, what he has selectively written is enough to fulfill what we NEED to know about Jesus. Beyond that, if anyone wants to exploit any possible loophole, he's probably not serious about understanding the person and message of Jesus anyway.

SO Luke isnt omniscient, but Jesus is, and he knows inner thoughts. He also knows the reason for disbelief in our hearts.

thetruthsetsyoufree

31 Aug 08, 16:25

domonkassyu wrote:

the author of luke does read minds for God is a revealer of secrets.however the writer luke is not able to read minds.

then xaraikex replied:

That is a contradiction.

To xaraikex:

I believe domonkassyu meant that the Author of the Gospel of Luke is omniscient. And this Author is God Himself. In the Gospel of John, we read that the Word is with God, and the Word is God. God is the Author of the Bible, the Author of His Word. In other words, the men who wrote both the Old and New Testaments were inspired by the Holy Spirit, God Himself.

However, the disciple Luke himself was a mere man. Luke was certainly not omniscient. However, he was inspired by God to write the gospel.

Essentially, the Gospels are eye-witness accounts of the life and death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. But these eye-witness accounts can be written in different styles --- in poetry or prose etc.

Hence it can be quite tough to define the Gospels as stories or storytelling. I have no problem seeing the Gospels as "stories" as long as they are not considered as fiction. So, the Gospels are non-fiction stories if you wish to see it as such.

The Bible, God's Word, is a work of art. We also need to understand and appreciate the literary stylistics in the light of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek traditions and conventions of a particular age or era. What we conceive and perceive of stories and storytelling now may be different from how it was like in the past.

The difficulty of establishing the "integrity", so to speak, of the Gospels is because of what appear to be an element of omniscience in these eye-witness accounts. I suppose the challenge here is why mere men like Luke may know of the Pharisee's inner, private thoughts.

(Perhaps you would like to elaborate on the Greek --- and please do pardon my ignorance if my proposal was flawed)

My response, I assume, will be like most Christians' --- which is that the Bible is not an ordinary document. It is God's Word. It is a book written by God but through mere men. If you do not have faith, and if your eyes are not opened, you will not believe this.

If you do not believe this, then all discussion will end here because we are coming from two irreconciliable premises.

But if you believe that the Bible, a supernatural document, is inspired by God, then the writers of the Gospels may receive insights from God, the Author. And some of these insights may be "omniscient." The emphasis here is that Luke, a mere man, is inspired by God through supernatural means. Perhaps you may find this inspiration business questionable.

Most of what I said is true and real, but the bits about Greek are quite speculative based on what I gather. You must explain and elaborate further because it will be helpful for all of us here to read what you have found out, and I am sure whatever you have found out will be interesting.

http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/