What is fornication?

[Cap]

This is an interesting set of arguments being made. In regards to the adultery, the punishment was stoning by the witness of two or more. In the scenario trying to trap the Son of God, it was determined that there were not two witnesses, and then He makes the statement "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.' as if He can condemn without witness. Which is the way it is mostly viewed for all of our sins in regards to witnesses and God. God needs only to be the witness. I suppose it is proper to say that God the Father and God the Son are the two witness in an individuals life, perhaps. So technically, the women caught in adultery was one of the witness, she would have to be if no else would do it.

John 8:18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

Is the Son of God teaching here that we, ourselves are one witness to an event? With God the other witness? What if the women WAS guilty, and she lied?

 

[Edward]

Did Jesus forgive her, or did he just not condemn her because all her accusers left? I don’t see the phrase, your sins are forgiven, or I forgive you, in the passage. I think @frederick is right.

You are correct he did not say I forgive you. But he did say neither do I condemn thee, (which could be another way of saying I forgive you. I'm not saying it is I'm just saying it could be.) go and sin no more.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

the case of the adulterous woman is not inspired.

This case of the adulterous woman is very strange. Christ acted as if the death penalty was wrong, but it is the law that approves the death penalty.

"For ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed * me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46, 47) Since Jesus recognized that the Law given by God through Moses condemned grave sins as adultery and agreed with such a Law, how could he have said to the adulteress, "hath no man condemned thee?"

Moses condemned.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...5F704549C8A1AED11DB15F704549C8A1AED&FORM=VIRE

I urge caution on labeling the recorded words of Jesus as not inspired whenever He says something difficult regarding the Law. He does that a lot because He was constantly hounded by Pharisees who misused the Law and were enemies of the righteousness that is not found in the Law. Jesus did say some things that were very strange, the way of salvation IS very strange to the Jews, because although the Law testifies of it, the Law does not contain it. If you want to strike a section of scripture from the record, you need to bring some heavy evidence that it was added to the text and that there exists a more reliable record with that passage not included.

There weren't two witnesses so Jesus acted in perfect harmony with the Law.

That sounds like an assumption, if they were to be believed: she was caught in the act of adultery. I can just as easily assume that when her husband came home the whole neighborhood observed the girl and the guy fleeing naked from the house and that there were upwards of 15 witnesses. She already had accusers, Jesus merely got them to drop their charge because:

a) He pointed out that His teaching was that only someone without sin could execute Judgment; which brought to mind their own guilt
b) They were just fronting anyways. They weren't about that life and weren't gonna stone her anyways. They'd have just reported Jesus for inciting an unlawful killing.

Did Jesus forgive her, or did he just not condemn her because all her accusers left? I don’t see the phrase, your sins are forgiven, or I forgive you, in the passage.

I would argue that it amounts to the same thing. Like... hey man I'm not giving you this stereo, but I'm putting it down on the counter and if you pick it up and walk off with it, I won't say anything about it.

 

[Edward]

Let's not forget about...

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
John 8:4 KJV

Now the last I knew it took two to have "fun", so my question is where is the man. I think the Messiah saw straight through their deception.

 

[PeteR]

Heard that, but consider that this was after the scepter had departed from Judah. The Jews technically did not have the authority to stone anybody at this point, and the one time when they tried to get Jesus to take a stand, disobey Rome, and incite an actual stoning of an adulterous woman, He passed on it and dropped the "He who is without sin" bombshell on them. Therefore I don't believe the death penalty could be used as a given in this case.

Yeshua/Jesus was being tested... the text says the woman was 'caught in the act' of adultery. Those testing Yeshua knew the Torah says the man and the woman were to be stoned. Had He condemned her, He would have sinned. He didn't change the Law, only used it righteously, then demonstrated His power to forgive.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Had He condemned her, He would have sinned.

You say the oddest things.... This says to me that the woman's Creator, the One who formed the stone that the Law was written on, would be sinful to condemn her for sinning against His Law. I have to pass on that.

So far I have heard that Jesus wasn't sinning because there weren't two witnesses, and now Jesus wasn't sinning because without both sinning parties present neither could be lawfully Judged (which I'd love to see where the precedent for that is!)

Which could make lawyerly sense... but He did not say "Where are the witnesses?" or "Where is the man?", and I have to believe that the reason He did not do so is because He had something somewhat more important than being pedantic about the Law on His mind.

Remember if they had 2 witnesses that both walked in on the woman and the man, and if they had dragged both of them before Jesus for judgment: His answer would still have been perfectly intelligible.

"Let He who is without sin cast the first stone".

Since the amount of sin in the crowd is unchanged with or without witnesses/the male adulterer, why would these details matter. No-one could throw a rock anyways.

 

[FollowingHim]

This case of the adulterous woman is very strange.

Which is why it is worth pondering in much greater detail, not throwing away. It is when we find something that does not seem to fit with our current understanding of God that we actually learn and grow, by seeing how we have to change our understanding of Him in order to accommodate all the facts. On the other hand, if we just throw away each passage that doesn't seem to fit, we'll never learn.

I agree that adultery is equivalent to idolatry. We cannot worship anyone but God. And the husband is dividing his wife's body, as if God is sharing his right to be worshiped with someone else. So will God allow us to worship anyone but him?

We, the Church, are the Bride of Christ. He is our Husband.
Nevertheless, He allows those of us within the Bride to marry each other here on earth. Is that adultery against Him?
No, because it is all within His Bride.
BUT we are not to be unequally yoked, ie to marry unbelievers, because that would be going to someone outside His authority.
The same applies to a husband allowing intimacy between two of his own wives - it's still within his "bride". Again, whether he SHOULD allow it, or whether it would be profitable, is a whole different matter. But it's not adultery.

And really, what makes me be against lesbian and homosexual sex is genesis. I see genesis 2: 20,21,22 as a model of sexual intercourse that God wants. The only honorable sexual relationship in the Bible is between man and woman.

Genesis does set the model of what God wants, I agree. However, lesbian and homosexual sex are very, very different things that should never be confused. Male homosexuality is repeatedly condemned in scripture, both old and new testaments, and given the death penalty in the Mosaic law. It is sin, unquestionably. Lesbian sex on the other hand is never mentioned at all in the Old Testament, ie never condemned in the Law (and as sin is disobedience to the law it is rather difficult to label it sin), and only possibly mentioned once in the New (Romans 1:26).

Two completely different issues, don't ever conflate them.

Christians who support lesbian sex do not approve of two women living together and adopting children. But the Bible also does not condemn two women forming a family, so what would your argument be that it would be wrong for two women to form a family without a man?

It is against the natural patriarchal order of the family established in Genesis and explained further later. God's pattern for a family is for it to be led by a man, with his wife (or wives) as his suitable helpers (help-meet). A family of two women has no head.

Having said this, you're right that two women forming a family is not condemned as sin. This means that if two women are forced into this through circumstances (e.g. widowhood, poverty etc), they do not sin. God's law is great like this - it leaves open options that are not God's ideal plan - not as loopholes to allow sin, but rather as allowance for the practical difficulties of life.

However it is not God's intended plan. Deliberately seeking this and deliberately rejecting God's order is another matter, as it is a deliberate choice to go against His Will.

 

[frederick]

I can just as easily assume that when her husband came home the whole neighborhood observed the girl and the guy fleeing naked from the house and that there were upwards of 15 witnesses.

Best if we stick with what is actually written and not speculate. Cheers

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Agreed.

 

[Pacman]

On consideration, that's actually even simpler. It's a sin to "uncover the nakedness of" another man's wife or a range of people closely related to you. It's actually not about what you do once you get her naked. Just getting her naked was adultery to begin with.

Ehh slight disagreement with you there Sam “uncover the nakedness” is Only a euphemism for sex... otherwise it would be a sin for a parent to change their child’s diaper...

Leviticus 18:6 NASB
[6] 'None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.

 

[Cap]

Besides, it makes that discussion about being able to fantasize about your neighbors wife naked while he is grilling kinda awkward.

 

[Pacman]

Besides, it makes that discussion about being able to fantasize about your neighbors wife naked while he is grilling kinda awkward.

Lol

 

[FollowingHim]

Ehh slight disagreement with you there Sam “uncover the nakedness” is Only a euphemism for sex... otherwise it would be a sin for a parent to change there child’s diaper...

Leviticus 18:6 NASB
[6] 'None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.

Which is exactly why, if you go through the list of prohibited close relatives carefully, where this is spelled out in more detail, you'll find you're specifically prohibited from uncovering the nakedness of your niece and many other close relatives, but not from uncovering the nakedness of your daughter. This seems like an accidental omission until you realise that it really is about nakedness, and to prohibit you from seeing your daughter naked would cause all fathers to sin, because it would be asking the impossible. The fact that you still shouldn't do anything sexual with her is obvious from the general thrust of the teaching and from interpretation of it elsewhere (Sirach being the best example of that). But the technical prohibitions are very carefully crafted to allow for the practicalities of family life.

 

[Pacman]

Which is exactly why, if you go through the list of prohibited close relatives carefully, where this is spelled out in more detail, you'll find you're specifically prohibited from uncovering the nakedness of your niece and many other close relatives, but not from uncovering the nakedness of your daughter. This seems like an accidental omission until you realise that it really is about nakedness, and to prohibit you from seeing your daughter naked would cause all fathers to sin, because it would be asking the impossible. The fact that you still shouldn't do anything sexual with her is obvious from the general thrust of the teaching and from interpretation of it elsewhere (Sirach being the best example of that). But the technical prohibitions are very carefully crafted to allow for the practicalities of family life.

so it’s a sin for a man to change his nieces diaper? Also your wrong about your daughter not being included In the list. Your daughter is by definition the daughter of your woman...

Leviticus 18:17 NASB
[17] You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.

 

[rockfox]

You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter

Ya I don't think that's talking about a mere peep show.

 

[FollowingHim]

Fair point @Pacman.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I think this point has been thoroughly debated in another thread by someone who is much more scholarly when it comes to the ancient manuscripts, who took the position that this passage was a later addition. I agree that we cannot simply dismiss difficult passages simply because we have difficulty reconciling them with other truths, but it can lend credibility to the argument that a particular passage does not belong in the original. I don't see many people arguing that the addition at the end of Mark's gospel, is authentic, nor the Johannan comma, but this particular narrative seems to be the most controversial. It does seem to fit with Christ's willingness to forgive, redeem, and restore, but does present issues when it comes to Mosaic Law, but again, that only lends credibility to the argument that this is not found in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts; it, in and of itself is not reason enough to dismiss it. I think the best approach then to that passage, is to hold a degree of uncertainty as to its veracity, not based so much on the difficulty of the text itself, but more so based on how certain we are of its veracity. Having said that, and to tie this conversation back to where it went off the rails, I would not try to justify allowing something like Lesbianism, on a text that we don't have so much certainty about its authenticity. @FollowingHim gives some sound reasoning as to why we might not stand in judgment of those who practice it, but introducing the woman caught in the act of adultery, was IMHO, not a strong argument.

 

[Everett Mendiola 3rd.]

Well I can tell you what's it not; sex before marriage. But that's not really the question. The question is "What is it?"

We'll get there but we must start with this one fact, it's not sex before marriage. This is completely impossible and even a little silly when you look into it. Now I know that is counterintuitive for some of us. After all, the literal definition of the word fornication is in fact sex outside of wedlock, at least it is in English dictionaries. Unfortunately we don't have any inspired English dictionaries and so we have to check the definition against Scripture. I will be happy to wait while you check but so far I have been unable to find anything in the Bible that suggests that there is a sin of sex before marriage. I know that some can argue that it is implied but I can argue much more convincingly that those instances are referring to something else that we won't go in to right now because it's a theological equivalent of China; probably relevant at some point but for the moment just a big distraction.

Okay, so what is fornication? Well most of the time we see fornication used in our English Bibles it is the translation of the Greek word porneia. There may be exceptions. I haven't made an exhaustive search. Now you may recognize this word porneia, or it at least should sound familiar. You probably ran across it when you were reading articles and jokes in some magazine you can't recall the name of. Some of us know it from pornography or porn. But what does it mean? Well it doesn't mean "sex before marriage."

The consensus, and I know the risk I'm taking when I say that here, is that it means something like "prohibited sexual acts." It's not defined anymore than that. Now I know this isn't the Hebrew roots section but the only exhaustive list of prohibited sexual acts is in the Old Testament. Since they aren't listed out anywhere in the New we must refer back to that list to find out what porneia is.

This isn't just an academic question. When the Apostles sent Paul out from Council of Jerusalem the list of rules they said gentile believers had to follow was VERY short. The sexual laws were reduced to some version of "abstain from fornication(porneia)." You see what happens if fornication only means "don't have sex outside or marriage". A whole host of things become permissible, including bestiality and incest which is not mentioned in the New Testament. It's patently ridiculous that the Apostles would have told the gentile believers that the only thing they had to do was not have sex outside of marriage. That didn't even begin to address a whole host of things like homosexuality and incest. Think about it you could have just "married" your sister and been fine. It's silly.

So there you go, I believe the word translated as fornication is pointing us back to The Law for the list of sexual sins and has nothing to do with the unlisted sin of "sex before marriage." Feel free to share your opinions.

Fornication In "Kingdom Definition" Is :
+*THE BREACHING OF COVENANT*+
+*THE BREACHING OF CONTRACT*+
IN ANY RELATIONSHIP ! BEING FROM
+*THE KINGDOM*+ TO +*ONE'S SELF*+ TO +*MARRIAGE*+TO +*TO BUSINESS*+ ETC.
Eccl. Ch.5:5 Better Is It Not To Vow Than To Vow And Not Pay ..
Eccl. Ch.5:4 When Thou Vowest A Vow
To Yah Differ Not In Paying It/Do Not Delay In Paying It !
For It Is Written :
For To "Break Covenant" Is To Bow To Another (God/Yah) ...
Jeremiah Ch.22:9 They Bowed And Served Other God's !
NOW WE KNOW PEOPLE ARE NOT GOD'S BUT DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPTUALIZATION ...

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Fornication In "Kingdom Definition" Is :
+*THE BREACHING OF COVENANT*+
+*THE BREACHING OF CONTRACT*+
IN ANY RELATIONSHIP ! BEING FROM
+*THE KINGDOM*+ TO +*ONE'S SELF*+ TO +*MARRIAGE*+TO +*TO BUSINESS*+ ETC.
Eccl. Ch.5:5 Better Is It Not To Vow Than To Vow And Not Pay ..
Eccl. Ch.5:4 When Thou Vowest A Vow
To Yah Differ Not In Paying It/Do Not Delay In Paying It !
For It Is Written :
For To "Break Covenant" Is To Bow To Another (God/Yah) ...
Jeremiah Ch.22:9 They Bowed And Served Other God's !
NOW WE KNOW PEOPLE ARE NOT GOD'S BUT DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPTUALIZATION ...

Kudos to you for attempting to steer this conversation back to the original topic, but I think I am having difficulty understanding your logic. or how the Scriptures you used here, support the position you are taking.

 

[FollowingHim]

For To "Break Covenant" Is To Bow To Another (God/Yah)

This comment makes the serious mistake of equating the words "God" and "Yah". God is a category, while Yah is a personal name. Throughout history people have bowed to other "gods", false gods. However if they are bowing to another god, they are not bowing to Yah, who is One and there is no other of Him.