CONTEXT is King?

Wrangler said:

A dodge, crutch, trope in Strawman argumentation, lazy argument, etc.

How it is a lazy argument is the presumption that pulling out the "context" statement needs no further explanation. An internet meme to any claim is SOURCE - as if the absence proves the claim invalid, like we don't have eyes to see for ourselves. Saying it is out of context should be accompanied by an explanation of how context changes things.

The most common error is over-spiritualized claiming the statement is spiritual lacking any soulful application whatever. A good example is Jesus telling his disciples to sell their cloak to buy a sword.

Click to expand...

JESUS IS KING .
And to deny HIS WORDS is TO DENY HIM . And if one DENIES HIM they have DENIED THE FATHER WHO SENT HIM .
To follow another jesus is vain and futile and the end result will only be wailing . Just a reminder to us all .

amigo de christo said:

JESUS IS KING .
And to deny HIS WORDS is TO DENY HIM . And if one DENIES HIM they have DENIED THE FATHER WHO SENT HIM .
To follow another jesus is vain and futile and the end result will only be wailing . Just a reminder to us all .

Click to expand...

@amigo de christo

MatthewG said:

Hello to whoever may read, and ScottA.

I've read the Gospels, meaning Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John enough times to understand that Jesus never once ever talked to me personally.

All the best.

Click to expand...

No, you are wrong about it.
The Gospel of Luke 12:7
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

God has spoken to every person who has ever read the Bible through the words within it.
If you want to become like one of them, then you are the very person whom the Bible conversed with directly.

ScottA said:

Well, yes, the greatest force or power in any scriptural scenario is the Spirit. Which is possibly right or wrong to that degree. We/history has seen both in excess. But it is also important to not stifle the Spirit, for every word from God comes by the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Yes. If you examine Genesis, you'll find God not approving spirit but his physical creation.
27 So God created humans to be like himself; he made men and women. 28 God gave them his blessing and said:

Have a lot of children! Fill the earth with people and bring it under your control. Rule over the fish in the ocean, the birds in the sky, and every animal on the earth.

29 I have provided all kinds of fruit and grain for you to eat. 30 And I have given the green plants as food for everything else that breathes, including animals, both wild and tame, and birds. And so it was.

31 God looked at what he had done. All of it was very good! Evening came, then morning—that was the sixth day.

ScottA said:

I like it...but why does it seem like we are carving off opposite sides of a gyro meat?

Click to expand...

Ha! Mainly it seems like that because we are.

ScottA said:

The reason why I mention it and go there is because, just as many things of this world point to God whom is spirit and perfect, all progressing and leading to our becoming "like Him" (perfect) and "One" with Him--what shall we say, that God's objective in creating all things is the "journey" or the "destination?"

Click to expand...

That question, itself, could be a whole thread. They merge into eternity.

ScottA said:

I do understand that--meanwhile--we are also "here" for a purpose. But no where is it even suggested in scripture that the world is what it's all about, or the real priority.

Click to expand...

Not even suggested? That the world is the real priority is explicitly stated in the most commonly quoted verse! God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

Now, the overly-spritualized overlook the actual text to invoke eiesegesis, find ‘types” and spiritual foreshadowing, displace the WHAT with an inferred WHY. If God himself said what it’s all about, the real priority is X, the overly-spiritualized would overlook it! FYI, I hold that X = 2 Corinthians 18
All of this is a gift from our Creator God, who has pursued us and brought us into a restored and healthy relationship with Him through the Anointed. And He has given us the same mission, the ministry of reconciliation, to bring others back to Him.

We have a mission from God, which is not passive, nor does it begin in the after-life in heaven; it’s here in this fleshy world and now. Paul said to be all things to all people so some might be saved. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Examples he uses is all of this world - national identity, religious identity, and weakness in this world and to the things of this world.

Jesus fed the hungry, cured the sick, caused the lame to walk, all fleshy signs, categorized contemptuously by the overly-spiritualized. Yea but he did it for their spiritual well being, they claim. The Bible consistently emphasizes balance. Give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God’s. Put your heavenly fathers will first AND all these (fleshly, worldly concerns) will ALSO be given.

Said differently and bringing this back to the OP, the overly-spiritualized take the ubiquitous soulful aspects of God’s will out of context. God did not spiritually or metaphorically clothe Adam and Eve with animal skin. Animals don’t give up their skin without physical, worldly violence being an inherent part of the event. Jesus didn’t spiritually or metaphorically suffer and die on the cross. The way to the Spirit is through the body, the flesh, the world.

Wrangler said:

The most obvious Biblical context of morality is from the error KJV made in the 10C prohibition of murder, not killing.

Earlier in Scripture, God, himself, commanded a man who gathered fire wood be stoned to death.

Elsewhere, the woman who is the most blessed, more blessed than the mother of Jesus, is most blessed BECAUSE she killed someone as a powerful act of justice.

Differentiating between righteous killing and evil murder requires context - in and out of the Bible.

Click to expand...

My question is:
Why are the men who accused the other man, outside minding other people's business?
Weren't they also supposed to be remaining in their own tents?

Exo 16:29
See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

Hypocrisy.

ScottA said:

But yes, that is all hyper-spiritual--because "God is spirit"--and so are His children (who are to be "like Him"--"not of this world").

Click to expand...

Here is where we part ways. While "going to heaven" is common in our culture, it is not Biblical. We are not destined for heaven but right here in the New world. Jesus was raised because of the Spirit of God but not as a spirit; Jesus was raised fleshy, worldly, with a body. That is our ultimate destiny, not be "in spirit" but in our soul, our body with God's Spirit in us. We forever remain a physical, worldly container for the divine.

Always a brides maid, never a bride, so to speak.

ScottA said:

As for "overly-spiritualized"--it is a bad word

Click to expand...

Nope. It's perfect. A reflection of the narrow road, where some go too far left, too worldly and others to the right, over-spiritualized.

Ziggy said:

My question is:
Why are the men who accused the other man, outside minding other people's business?
Weren't they also supposed to be remaining in their own tents?

Exo 16:29
See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

Hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Oy vey. Change in subject and victimized by your poor choice of translations, relying on the worst possible one available today in English. Let's look at a modern translation. New Living Translation
29 They must realize that the Sabbath is the LORD's gift to you. That is why he gives you a two-day supply on the sixth day, so there will be enough for two days. On the Sabbath day you must each stay in your place. Do not go out to pick up food on the seventh day.”

"Stay in your place" ≠ "Remain in your tent."

ScottA said:

This is a denial of Jesus going to the Father and being One with the Father in the glory of the Father, which is spirit. And is some kind of twisted, errored theology that says flesh and blood can and has inherited the kingdom of God...also biblically referred to as "heaven."

But why would you part ways at such a juncture as entering the glory of God--not in a "container", but as One?

Click to expand...

I part ways because none of what you wrote above is true (or truly relevant). Thomas didn’t put his hands into spirit.

ScottA said:

One cannot go "too far" in the spiritual direction of God

Click to expand...

You are in denial. Christ said what you’ve done to the least (of those in the world) you’ve done to me.

Wrangler said:

Oy vey. Change in subject and victimized by your poor choice of translations, relying on the worst possible one available today in English. Let's look at a modern translation. New Living Translation
29 They must realize that the Sabbath is the LORD's gift to you. That is why he gives you a two-day supply on the sixth day, so there will be enough for two days. On the Sabbath day you must each stay in your place. Do not go out to pick up food on the seventh day.”

"Stay in your place" ≠ "Remain in your tent."

Click to expand...

He wasn't picking up food though, he was picking up sticks.

Busybodies is what they was. And talebearers.
So while they pointed out this man's sin, somehow their own sin escaped their notice.
That is called hypocrisy.
'
Apparently No one was staying in their place.

Hugs

ScottA said:

This is a denial of Jesus going to the Father and being One with the Father in the glory of the Father, which is spirit. And is some kind of twisted, errored theology that says flesh and blood can and has inherited the kingdom of God...also biblically referred to as "heaven."

But why would you part ways at such a juncture as entering the glory of God--not in a "container", but as One?

Click to expand...

I believe Jesus can take on any form he chooses.
After his resurrection he was walking on the shore and met naked Peter, and they all sat down to eat fish.
Of course there is Thomas who also saw him in a flesh body.
There are a lot of characters (Angels) in the OT that show up in the flesh from time to time.
Standing under trees and such.
Mary saw a gardener. He went up to Jerusalem and was witnessed by a lot of people.

But after he ascended I don't believe he needed the flesh in order to "prove" to the disciples he was alive.

With God, All things are possible.

ScottA said:

Yeah, sure, everything has and needs context. The point though, is just like Jesus asking "which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?", is that God says what context is King, not someone's interpretation of the scriptures by their own understanding of what seems right.

But yes, everything perhaps has its local or worldly context. But more importantly, what is "greater" is the context in which God has for including it in His eternal word regarding the things of God rather than merely the things of men and this world. So the examples that I gave were to show that there is indeed a context that men first understand to be the context, but the scriptures do show that breaking that superficial context is common, and if there is a "greater" reason, that initial context that may have come first, is not necessarily even connected, but is rather there for confirmation.

Click to expand...

You mean.........Like this?:
Ezekiel 13:
6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.

Seems especially true concerning not only what and how you state the "case of context."
But, even more so, concerning "doctrinal" issues as well.
Of the which, is more damage done?
A verse or 2 later states that it is the "seller" of said vanity, and lying divination, that receives the harsher judgement/s! And the "buyers" of the seller/s?
Well? They are receiving their reward/s.

Yet? To God's own?
Ezekiel 13:
20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
21 Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

ScottA said:

no where is it even suggested in scripture that the world is what it's all about, or the real priority.

Click to expand...

Wrangler said:

Not even suggested? That the world is the real priority is explicitly stated in the most commonly quoted verse! God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

Click to expand...

ScottA said:

As for "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son"...the verse can also be looked at

Click to expand...

Scott, here is where you fall off the over-spiritualized deep end. "Can" is potential. You should humbly admit that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" CAN BE looked at as the "suggestion" you deny that Scripture states the world is what it's all about, the real priority.

We all understand that the 1C is all about God, it's his Creation and the relationship of the world to him. Having said that, the world is very much the priority to God. So much so, that he sent his son - out of love for the world. I don't know what IDOLATRY the over-spiritualized embrace to not have eyes to see how this Scripture CAN BE looked at this way.

What kind of subterfuge would one embrace to deny that a man who sends his son on a mission, who ends up later dying, denies that mission had any importance, that son died for nothing (for what was not even a real priority)?! This is the entire point of the Bible! It's not that his son happened to die during the labor of love. The world was so important that the man sent his son to die a sacrificial death to save the object of his love, the world. Christ told us there is no greater love. Not even suggested the world is what it's all about?!

Just because eisegesis exists, one "can" look at something a certain subjective way, does not change the objective interpretation of these words. Said differently, if this verse does not meet your criteria, what set of words would suggest the world is what it's all about, or the real priority? Asking for a friend, who needs context.