Sin against the body

User avatar
Michelle
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Sin against the body

Post by Michelle » Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:52 am

RoyHobs wrote:I agree with Paidon.

From John Jerome Nowak:

Samaritan woman

In the case of the Samaria woman (noted: Jews have no dealings with Samaritans) at the well, she had five husbands (actual word men, not revealing they had marriage status with her). When using the correct words men and man, it can be perceived and accepted that Jesus is pointed out she had not marriage status in God's eyes with any of these men. She said has no man, Jesus said she answered truly. The explanation best of my understanding, is she committed adultery with already married men, to other woman. Where any joining of the flesh with these type already married men, is adultery. Is not a marriage in God's word.

John 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy man, and come hither. 17 The woman answered and said, I have no man. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no man: 18 For thou hast had five men; and he whom thou now hast is not thy man: in that saidst thou truly. 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

Roy, what else do you believe about the Woman at the Well? Did God save her or is she in hell right now for her sexual immorality? If you believe she is saved, what did she need to do in order to get saved?

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:04 am

StevenD wrote:However, accounting for notable mention in the genealogy of Christ, Rahab (i.e. "the harlot", e.g. Heb. 11:21; Jam. 2:25) does appear to offset your argument. Matthew records that "Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab" (1:5a; also cf. Ruth 4:20f; Lk. 3:32).

Steven,

Scripture interprets Scripture. My first difficulty with your assertion is that we just do not have enough information to place this situation above others such as Jacob and Rachel; or Onan and Tamar; or Tamar and Amnon; or Adam and Eve etc., etc.

The difficulty with the example of Rahab is that we just do not know the whole story. I am still working on this one. I have read well written and well researched papers which present the thesis that Rahab was not a harlot. Harlot is a mistranslation. She was an "inn keeper".

Here is a short article I just simply googled -- http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... he-harlot/

I am thinking about a much more detailed study but I can't seem to find it at the moment. If you are interested, contact me hobsroy@gmail.com and I will try to find it.

Second................it has been also studied and stated that Rahab the harlot is not the same Rahab as in the line of Jesus. http://www.outsidethecamp.org/rahab.htm

This shows that the "Rahab" of Matthew 1:5 is not the same person as the "Rahab" of Joshua 2 and 6, Hebrews 11:31, and James 2:25. Rahab the harlot was not the person who married Salmon and was not the great-great-grandmother of David and was not in the line of Jesus Christ.

Lastly............If Rahab was a harlot and is the same person in the line of Jesus, what if her lovers perished? How do we know. What if she was only with one customer. And that customer died. Thus freeing her from the law of her husband. We do not have enough information to make THIS example an example that we should define all others. Scripture interprets Scripture. Not all Scripture has the same value or weight of testimony.

If we go back to the beginning of time, we have passages of Scripture that are SIMPLE in their delivery. Adam was one flesh with Eve. We HAVE to conclude that they are husband and wife simply because they had sexual intercourse. Paul affirms this by re-stating that sex is the vehicle in which two flesh become one.

Then we have Abram and Sarai. Isaac and Rebekah. Onan and Tamar. Jacob and Rachel/Leah. Etc., etc. We have Paul saying that the 'unmarried' woman is the 'virgin'. We have the tokens of a woman's virginity -- Deut 22:13.

We have to take the most clearest passages of Scripture and then use those passages to interpret other seemingly difficult passages where we just don't have enough information. Certainly you would agree.


If a man wants to use Rahab being a prostitute to suggest a woman can be joined to more than one man at a time and it be righteous.......good luck to them.

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:13 am

I would like to add to my reply to Steven.

I found this comment on the subject of harlot or not harlot interesting:

We know Rahab had a flax business because she hid the spies under them, the house being on the wall must have been big, the stalks must have been very large to be able to hide men, we also know the house were they hid was of her fathers because it is written that all who were in that house that is her father’s household would be saved.


Josh.6 [6] But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.

[25] And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

My understanding is that Rahab living in her father house, being a successful business woman was probably wealthy and powerful, wealthy woman dress to the occasion, she probably wore fancy stuff and of course jewelry, she probably knew she would be in the Messiah line and kept herself away from the local single man, the man trying to marry their sons into money and success feeling less despised her and called her a !+%**.

We have another example of a woman called or thought to be a !+%** by the way she dressed, that being Tamar. Gen.38

[13] And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep.

[14] And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife. [15] When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.


I believe our Father doesn´t make mistakes no matter what man say.


The writer here makes a great point by highlighting the fact that Tamar is called a harlot because of her dress; but we are assured she was not.

One more comment:

So what do we know about Rahab the harlot? Was she a Biblical prostitute? The Biblical text identifies her as a zônāh, a prostitute (Joshua 2:1), but she seems more like a landlady. Indeed, the first-century C.E. historian Josephus reports that she kept an inn. The consonants that comprise the word “prostitute” in Hebrew are znh, which are the same consonants that comprise the Hebrew word for a female who gives food and provisions. The text doesn’t describe Rahab’s profession negatively, as one might expect from a description of Biblical prostitutes. The lifestyle of Rahab in the Bible continues to elude us.

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:25 am

Michelle wrote:what else do you believe about the Woman at the Well? Did God save her or is she in hell right now for her sexual immorality? If you believe she is saved, what did she need to do in order to get saved?
Hi Michelle,

I know I'm not your biggest fan. :) I do appreciate the interaction and your willingness to answer questions and now ask them.

To answer your question -- I just don't have enough information to know for sure what happened to the Samaritan woman. When Jesus said, "I who speak to you are He."

This must have been unbelievably powerful! Powerful enough for her to then seek truth and righteousness. I trust the power of the Word and the power of the Spirit. If this woman truly 'died to herself' and vowed to follow the Lord, I have no doubt that this woman would have remained celibate the remainder of her life. But Jesus did say that such a decision would be difficult for most -- Matthew 19:11.

Jesus said, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." I hope I see the Samaritan woman in heaven. Thanks for asking.

User avatar
Michelle
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Sin against the body

Post by Michelle » Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:01 am

Thanks for your answer. I appreciate that you spelled out your position clearly.
RoyHobs wrote: Hi Michelle,

I know I'm not your biggest fan. :) I do appreciate ... Thanks for asking.
This stumps me. You're not my biggest fan, yet you appreciate and thank me for questions. I'm not sure whether you want me to continue or you want me to lurk while you discuss this with others. Let me know...

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:25 am

Michelle wrote:This stumps me. You're not my biggest fan, yet you appreciate and thank me for questions

Sorry. I should not have made such a comment -- too vague. One thing I hate about forums and email. Sometimes words just don't convey how I feel or what I really meant.

I just did not believe I would be someone you would like to converse with. That is all.

I would welcome more communication. Anytime, anywhere, any modality.

StevenD
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:25 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by StevenD » Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:52 am

Hi Roy,

Your suggestion (or rather the suggestion of the article you linked to) that זנה (Josh. 2:1) might be properly translated as innkeeper or a woman who fed people would seem more plausible if I had less confidence in the accuracy of the Epistle to the Hebrews and James.

Such a reading also appears to require an emendation of the vocal apparatus of the Hebrew. While one might posit alternate vocal renderings without disturbing me, the custodians of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (being of a religious persuasion) seem unlikely to generate a tradition that adds scandal to the ancestry of King David.

Gesenius' Lexicon states that one should disregard those, "who, in some passages, for instance in that cited from Joshua, understood a hostess, a keeper of a house of entertainment, from זון to feed." See http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Gese ... m?word=ZNH

Perhaps one should note that the root of the latter term interpreted "to feed" is quite different from the word found in Joshua 2:1. The term associated with Rahab is זונה, pronounced "zonah", from a root that phonetically resembles English /z-n-h/. Any connection with an innkeeper would derive from זון (pronounced "zoon", from /z-v-n/).

Needless to point out that if someone calls you a "ben zonah" in modern Hebrew today, they are not calling you the son of an innkeeper. :(

Meanwhile, the same Greek noun used in 1 Cor. 6:15-16 which you seem familiar with is the term employed by both the writer of Hebrews (11:31) and James (2:25) to describe Rahab's profession as a harlot/prostitute. I don't need to remind you that the range of meaning of the word (πόρνη) does not appear to stretch far enough to apply to a simple innkeeper (both the noun and verb forms appear in 1 Cor. 6:18).

I'm not sure why it's so important to you to strive against evidence in order to confirm your point?

Mercy rejoices...
StevenD

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3356
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Sin against the body

Post by steve » Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:21 pm

The difficulty with this type of analysis is that in Greek, there is but a single word "ανηρ" (anār) that is translated either as "man" or "husband" at the discretion of the translator. The same with the word "γυνη" (gunā, or some transliterate it as "gyne" from which we get the English word "gynecology") that means either "woman" or "wife."
Paidion, this is true, but it is clear, in John 4, that Jesus is using the word to mean husband, since He contrasts the first five with her present "man."

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3356
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Sin against the body

Post by steve » Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:27 pm

Michelle,

I think that when Roy wrote:
I know I'm not your biggest fan,
he meant to say, "I know you are not my biggest fan."

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:44 pm

StevenD wrote:I'm not sure why it's so important to you to strive against evidence in order to confirm your point?
Try this article: http://emahiser.christogenea.org/watchm ... april-2008

"Strive against evidence"?

"Go into your brother's wife and marry her." Go into = marry.

"Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife." Took/Became wife

"So Sarai said to Abram...please, go in to my maid...then Sarai took Hagar and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." Go into/be his wife

"Now there was one, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel..she was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity."

"Now the young woman was very beautiful to behold. a virgin; no man had known her." Virgin = known by know man. Non-virgin = known by a man/joined to a man.

"There is a difference between a wife and the virgin. The unmarried woman cares...." Unmarried = Virgin

Who is the one "striving against evidence"?

Post Reply

Return to “Marriage & Divorce”