Search results

What am I interpreting figuratively? I am simply saying that Matthew applies Jesus' words of a sinning right hand and eye in the context of sexual sin (both before and after; you leaving out the after part of the context).

As I said in my last post, I was referring to Matthew's account from the Sermon on the Mount where sexual sin is the issue. Interesting how the evangelists used the Jesus tradition and apply it in different contexts to make different points. Ipsissima Vox!

Not many do use Diana. What are the major modern versions that do?

I'm referring more to context found in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount where the foot is not mentioned. Both the eye and the right hand are set in terms of adultery and fornication. But the idea could still be taken (in Mark) about going to the adulteress woman as mentioned in Proverbs.

I guess you're exempt then.

Stop sinning. Remove the sin in your life. I don't believe it means to remove temptation. For example, if you have problem w/ porn, Jesus is not saying cut off your internet. He is saying to cut out the sinning. And, given the sexual content of the passage, I think it is possible he is...

I've always made 2 points in these discussions: 1) the trigonometry used to determine distances is a bit far fetched for me. The angle is so minute, that w/o another form (and I'm not convinced that there are other good methodds) of measurement, the millions or billions are borderline absurd...

Just look at the ones you put on the other thread. Not one single quotation of the text in question.

Is Jordan's silence an answer here? Or has he just failed to see this thread and question?

You mean it is not an apostolic doctrine found in the historic creeds of orthodoxy???

According to Jordan K., many ancient fathers quoted the comma as it appears in the KJV. I want to take him to task and argue that these are not quotations. But the other thread got derailed. So, Jordan, can you demonstrate these quotations? Or do they just appear as Trinitarian formula...

In the ancient mindset, Artemis=Diana. So the rendering in English is artificial. One would be a transliteration. The other a sense translation.

Jordan, maybe you missed it, but I wanted your response. I'm taking you to task. There was not one quotation of the comma.

Diana is the Latin equivalent (and thus the Roman version) of the Greek goddess.

Winterfell!!! I got 11 of 16. Mixed up LORT w/ HP (or visa versa). Missed a few Bible ones too. Put in less formal and more modern vernacular, it gets tricky.

Remonstrance not remonstrant. Remonstrance=protest.

You could, but that might also disrupt the flow and purpose of the text. But yes, no time limit. However, most extemporaneous preachers can't preach past an hour. It is too mentally taxing. Reading from a manuscript could draw it out (i.e. Puritans). But that is not in vogue these days...

A sermon should be as long as the text being exposited requires is one way to go with this. That is my first inclination.

I like what you are implying, but perhaps his problem is that his preacher is not as captivating as the cinema. I'm not saying this is a good criteria. But there it is.

bump for Jordan