Just an observation

[Hans Deventer]

From Friday to Saturday I spent a day and a night in a monastery in Belgium. I was there with our pastor and a few others to work out our church's vision, and of course to follow the services there as well.

It struck me again how perspectives differ. The order is a contemplative order and the monastery has its only income from the production of beer, the so called Westmalle Trappist (http://www.trappistwestmalle.be/en/page/biersoorten.aspx). The brewery is in the same complex and walking around it, you can smell the beer.
I realized again how branches of Christianity can look at this issue so totally different.

Dislaimer - this is not in order to rekindle any discussion on alcohol, merely to share an observation.

Below a (cell phone) picture of the monastery.

[BobHunt]

Hans, are you thinking our churches could........lol, I think you know what I was gonna say! Im only kidding!

[Ian Gentles]

Is it good beer? Wait , i didnt say that! lol

[Hans Deventer]

Is it good beer? Wait , i didnt say that! lol

I couldn't tell a good beer from a bad one if I swam in it. I don't like beer.

[Gina Stevenson]

I couldn't tell a good beer from a bad one if I swam in it. I don't like beer.

With this I concur! Having been several times near enough to beer to smell it, I've always said it's something one should take home and make bread with!! You can smell the yeast in it. I don't like the tho't of drinking yeast.

[Mike Schutz]

It struck me again how perspectives differ. The order is a contemplative order and the monastery has its only income from the production of beer, the so called Westmalle Trappist (http://www.trappistwestmalle.be/en/page/biersoorten.aspx). The brewery is in the same complex and walking around it, you can smell the beer.
I realized again how branches of Christianity can look at this issue so totally different.

I thought about your experience today as I was checking out of a supermarket. Standing behind me was a man wearing a t-shirt with the following statement: "Beer is God's way of saying 'I love you and I want you to be happy.'"

[Ben Jones]

That quote supposedly was made by Ben Franklin.

Ben

[Dennis M. Scott]

Nice church. :basic01

When the time is right, bring us up to date with your church's vision. Unless, of course, it includes beer funding.

[Hans Deventer]

Nice church. :basic01

When the time is right, bring us up to date with your church's vision. Unless, of course, it includes beer funding.

Don't worry, Dennis. As yet, I haven't heard any proposals in that direction. ;)

[Ben Jones]

I went on three different Hurricane Katrina relief trips over the past two years and was amazed to work beside about a dozen or so Christian men who chewed and or smoked tobacco. They hailed from South Carolina where nearly all farmers are tobacco farmers and apparantly saw nothing wrong with it. I thought about quoting 1 Cor 3:17, "If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple." But I didn't. :-)

Ben

[Billy Cox]

I thought about quoting 1 Cor 3:17, "If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple." But I didn't. :-)



Here is the preceding verse:
16Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

What if the 'you' that Paul is speaking to is the Church and not me as an individual.

Read the verse saying 'yall' instead of 'you' and one suddenly realizes that this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with smoking or drinking.

[Ben Jones]

Here is the preceding verse:


What if the 'you' that Paul is speaking to is the Church and not me as an individual.

Read the verse saying 'yall' instead of 'you' and one suddenly realizes that this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with smoking or drinking.

What is "the church?" It isn't a building, it is people. We are the church, not bricks and mortar, or 2 x 4's, but us!

Ben

[Billy Cox]

What is "the church?" It isn't a building, it is people. We are the church, not bricks and mortar, or 2 x 4's, but us!

Ben

Sure, but that's not the same as saying that the temple is my physical body.

[Ben Jones]

Sure, but that's not the same as saying that the temple is my physical body.

OK Billy,

1 Cor 6:19 puts it rather plainly; "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;" Also John 2:19, "Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (20) Then said the Jews, It took forty six years to build this temple, and you will build it again in three days? (21) But he spoke of the temple of his body."

From the above verses it is rather plain to see that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, (provided we have the Holy Spirit residing within us.)

Ben

[David Parker]

I'm no theologian, but if our individual human bodies are indeed "God's temple", then would not fat, caffeine, high cholesterol, and poor personal hygiene also be issues? ;)

[Gina Stevenson]

Sure, but that's not the same as saying that the temple is my physical body.

The additional verses from Ben seem to indicate otherwise, Billy, and ...

I'm no theologian, but if our individual human bodies are indeed "God's temple", then would not fat, caffeine, high cholesterol, and poor personal hygiene also be issues? ;)

... besides that, are some of these "issues" something that can deter us from being able to do our best at whatever that for which we are here happens to be?

[Hans Deventer]

1 Cor 6:19 puts it rather plainly; "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;"

"Your" here is plural. Not singular. Paul says that the community of believers is where the Holy Spirit lives. Of course, what we do with our physical body does affect that community and hence the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.

We, plural, are the Body of Christ. I'm sure you know that. What He could say of Himself singular, we can only say in plural. (Jamie, I'm aware of a lack of Trinitarian language here, but for the sake of simplicity.........)

[Hans Deventer]

The additional verses from Ben seem to indicate otherwise, Billy, and ...

You are right. They only SEEM to indicate otherwise. It's one of the cases where there is a disadvantage in speaking a language that does not distinguish between 2nd person singular and 2nd person plural. The Greek did.

[Ben Jones]

I'm no theologian, but if our individual human bodies are indeed "God's temple", then would not fat, caffeine, high cholesterol, and poor personal hygiene also be issues? ;)

Yup! It sounds to me like it is a good idea to take care of our bodies as best we can.

Ben

[Hans Deventer]

Yup! It sounds to me like it is a good idea to take care of our bodies as best we can.

I agree. Bot not based on the texts you mentioned.

[Ben Jones]

Uh, yeah sure. So then our bodies are NOT a temple of the Holy Spirit?

Ben

[Barbara Moulton]

I am not sure why it has to be an "either/or". While the original scripture might have been referring to the body of the church as a whole, it can certainly be helpful to the individual Christian to remember that her body is indeed a place where God dwells.

Just pausing to remember that might help us overcome some of the physical temptations to overindulge in anything in a manner that could damage our bodies.

When my oldest daughter was about four she came up to me with great seriousness and asked, 'Mommy, before I was born, I was in your tummy wasn't I?

Since she was only four I didn't go into all the anatomical details but confirmed that yes, she grew inside of me. Then she asked, "And Jesus lives in your heart right?"

I confirmed yes...that was true.

With great seriousness and eyes wide open she assured me, "I saw Him."

Her childish words touched my heart and kindled a desire in me that my children (and others) would always see Christ in me. And that acts as a check to my spirit if I sense that a practice or habit is obscuring that view.

[Bruce Carriker]

I'm no theologian, but if our individual human bodies are indeed "God's temple", then would not fat, caffeine, high cholesterol, and poor personal hygiene also be issues? ;)

Or, as one non-believing friend once told me: "I don't ever want to hear another sermon on the dangers of alcohol and tobacco from a 300-pound preacher.":basic04:eek::o

[Hans Deventer]

Uh, yeah sure. So then our bodies are NOT a temple of the Holy Spirit?

Ben

Ben, I think I pretty much already answered that one. If it isn't clear, please indicate where I need to elaborate.

[Jamie Wayne]

We, plural, are the Body of Christ. I'm sure you know that. What He could say of Himself singular, we can only say in plural. (Jamie, I'm aware of a lack of Trinitarian language here, but for the sake of simplicity.........)

Thanks for the laugh, Hans...it has been a very long day, and I appreciated the chuckle.

[Ben Jones]

"Your" here is plural. Not singular. Paul says that the community of believers is where the Holy Spirit lives. Of course, what we do with our physical body does affect that community and hence the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.

We, plural, are the Body of Christ. I'm sure you know that. What He could say of Himself singular, we can only say in plural. (Jamie, I'm aware of a lack of Trinitarian language here, but for the sake of simplicity.........)

Ben, I think I pretty much already answered that one. If it isn't clear, please indicate where I need to elaborate.

I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are attempting to say Hans. Saying things like "second person singular and second person plural", references to "Greek" and "trinitarian language" leave me with an uneasy feeling that one is attempting to pull a fast one using confusing language that us commoners don't quite grasp.

Dr. Charles Swindoll said something once about interpreting the bible, which I like. It isn't always 100% accurate 100% of the time (what is?) but he said, "If the normal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense." The normal sense of the passage I quoted is that our physical bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God lives inside of us. I doubt any true born again, Holy Spirit filled Christian would argue with this simple statement.

Ben

[David Pettigrew]

I doubt any true born again, Holy Spirit filled Christian would argue with this simple statement.

Ben

:laughing:laughing:laughing

You must be new. We'll argue anything - the simpler the better!

[Jamie Wayne]

We'll argue anything...

Not me! ;)

[Susan Unger]

I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are attempting to say Hans. Saying things like "second person singular and second person plural", references to "Greek" and "trinitarian language" leave me with an uneasy feeling that one is attempting to pull a fast one using confusing language that us commoners don't quite grasp.

Dr. Charles Swindoll said something once about interpreting the bible, which I like. It isn't always 100% accurate 100% of the time (what is?) but he said, "If the normal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense." The normal sense of the passage I quoted is that our physical bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God lives inside of us. I doubt any true born again, Holy Spirit filled Christian would argue with this simple statement.

Ben

Good morning, Ben.

I want to reassure you that Hans isn't trying to pull a fast one on you, nor is he trying to confuse you. I used to teach a foreign language. Many languages have more than one word for 'you'. Second person singluar means that the speaker is talking to one person that he knows well. Second person plural means he is talking to more than one person that he knows well. This may not seem like a big difference in English, but it is important in other languages such as greek, spanish, french and probably Dutch [Hans' native language].

As for comments about Trinitarian language...well, that was a side joke to some others that Hans knew would be reading. You'll find that happens alot. Some on here have known each other for many years.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are attempting to say Hans. Saying things like "second person singular and second person plural", references to "Greek" and "trinitarian language" leave me with an uneasy feeling that one is attempting to pull a fast one using confusing language that us commoners don't quite grasp.

Ok, let me try again.

In quite a few languages, there are different words for the English "you", differentiating between singular and plural. So when I say "you" in English, I can either be talking to one person (singular) or to a group (plural). Not so in Greek. Which is quite relevant because Paul wrote in Greek, not in English. In Greek, the word "you" is different for addressing one person or addressing a group. Now in this case, Paul used the word for addressing a group. I'm not pulling a fast one, I'm just explaining what Paul wrote, but where the English has a problem of making a difference clear that is obvious in original language.

Dr. Charles Swindoll said something once about interpreting the bible, which I like. It isn't always 100% accurate 100% of the time (what is?) but he said, "If the normal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense." The normal sense of the passage I quoted is that our physical bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God lives inside of us. I doubt any true born again, Holy Spirit filled Christian would argue with this simple statement.

Ben, you can only take the normal sense, if you first read what it says properly.

And properly, it means that the Holy Spirit lives among us, plural. Dr. Swindoll would no doubt agree that we should take that meaning as it makes good sense.

[Ken Pell]

I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are attempting to say Hans. Saying things like "second person singular and second person plural", references to "Greek" and "trinitarian language" leave me with an uneasy feeling that one is attempting to pull a fast one using confusing language that us commoners don't quite grasp.

Dr. Charles Swindoll said something once about interpreting the bible, which I like. It isn't always 100% accurate 100% of the time (what is?) but he said, "If the normal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense." The normal sense of the passage I quoted is that our physical bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God lives inside of us. I doubt any true born again, Holy Spirit filled Christian would argue with this simple statement.

Ben

Hans is not pulling a fast one. The word "you" being referenced is not speaking of your (Ben Jones') body. It is referring to "y'all" or "you'se guys". It is plural and corporate. In 1 Cor 3:17 "You" is nominative plural.

The point Hans is making [I trust I am interpreting him accurately] is that "you" is referring to the Church (the subject of the discussion ... hence nominative case is important) and not "you" as an individual. The Church (body of Christ) is God's "vaos" (temple/shrine).

If you want the "normal" sense to be accurate you must understand what/who the subject is.

This happens a lot when we take a verse or a chapter out of its context. Paul was writing to a church in 1 Corinthians and uses "you" plural a lot whereas a book like 1 Timothy (written to an individual) would see "you" singular.

[Billy Cox]

Dr. Charles Swindoll said something once about interpreting the bible, which I like. It isn't always 100% accurate 100% of the time (what is?) but he said, "If the normal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense."

This principle of interpreting the Bible is kind of like the 'i before e' rule in spelling English words. Most of the time it applies, but you have to be mindful of the exceptions.

If 'good sense' to me is that non-white people are inferior and that God frowns on racial mixing, then I could say that the 'Do not be unequally yoked' passage is Paul's clear condemnation of contemporary diversity and multiculturalism. Who am I to argue with the normal sense of God's Word?

In short, as long as you recognize that 'good sense' is a moving target then Swindoll's principle is relatively safe for everyday use.

[Ben Jones]

Hans is not pulling a fast one. The word "you" being referenced is not speaking of your (Ben Jones') body. It is referring to "y'all" or "you'se guys". It is plural and corporate. In 1 Cor 3:17 "You" is nominative plural.

The point Hans is making [I trust I am interpreting him accurately] is that "you" is referring to the Church (the subject of the discussion ... hence nominative case is important) and not "you" as an individual. The Church (body of Christ) is God's "vaos" (temple/shrine).

If you want the "normal" sense to be accurate you must understand what/who the subject is.

This happens a lot when we take a verse or a chapter out of its context. Paul was writing to a church in 1 Corinthians and uses "you" plural a lot whereas a book like 1 Timothy (written to an individual) would see "you" singular.

OK, I get it! The Holy Spirit lives in the church, and the church is not made up of people but instead is made up of concrete and 2 x 4's and carpet and shingles. I'm glad you cleared that up for me. I'm not sure where I got the idea that when one receives the Lord Jesus Christ, He came to reside within us in the person of the Holy Spirit, and our bodies are now the temple of the Holy Spirit. How foolish of me.

Is this good news or what. Context! Since I don't live in Corinth, or Ephesus, or Phillipi, or in Rome, (or any of the other cities in the Med,) nor am I a Hebrew, and my name isn't Matthew, Mark, Luke or John or Titus, or Jude, or Peter, and all these books were written 2000 years ago, I guess I am off the hook completely because of context. Why I don't even have to be born again because Jesus told Nicodemus that HE had to be born again, not me. Are we thankful for context or what!

Ben

[Gina Stevenson]

You are right. They only SEEM to indicate otherwise. It's one of the cases where there is a disadvantage in speaking a language that does not distinguish between 2nd person singular and 2nd person plural. The Greek did.

Thanks again for the reminder, Hans, tho' I do tend to think it can be a "both/and" situation, rather than an "either/or" one, just as Barbara has written about below (BTW, Barbara, that illustration of your daughter and "seeing Jesus" when in the womb is one of those precious things only a child could come up with ;)):

I am not sure why it has to be an "either/or". While the original scripture might have been referring to the body of the church as a whole, it can certainly be helpful to the individual Christian to remember that her body is indeed a place where God dwells.

Just pausing to remember that might help us overcome some of the physical temptations to overindulge in anything in a manner that could damage our bodies.

When my oldest daughter was about four she came up to me with great seriousness and asked, 'Mommy, before I was born, I was in your tummy wasn't I?

Since she was only four I didn't go into all the anatomical details but confirmed that yes, she grew inside of me. Then she asked, "And Jesus lives in your heart right?"

I confirmed yes...that was true.

With great seriousness and eyes wide open she assured me, "I saw Him."

Her childish words touched my heart and kindled a desire in me that my children (and others) would always see Christ in me. And that acts as a check to my spirit if I sense that a practice or habit is obscuring that view.

I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are attempting to say Hans. Saying things like "second person singular and second person plural", references to "Greek" and "trinitarian language" leave me with an uneasy feeling that one is attempting to pull a fast one using confusing language that us commoners don't quite grasp.

Ben

Naw, Hans doesn't pull fast ones ... now, he might be blunt sometimes, but no "fast ones." ;)

:laughing:laughing:laughing

You must be new. We'll argue anything - the simpler the better!

Couldn't push the "funny" button because there's not one on this forum ... so had to just leave this note instead. :basic05

[David Parker]

In one of the past discussions on this topic, somebody supplied a link to an article that made it all very clear. Seems it was written by a forum member....anybody remember?

On second thought...it was about "abstain from any appearance of evil" and I think this was the article (http://columbiaseminary.edu/coffeetalk/060.html).

[Hans Deventer]

OK, I get it! The Holy Spirit lives in the church, and the church is not made up of people but instead is made up of concrete and 2 x 4's and carpet and shingles. I'm glad you cleared that up for me. I'm not sure where I got the idea that when one receives the Lord Jesus Christ, He came to reside within us in the person of the Holy Spirit, and our bodies are now the temple of the Holy Spirit. How foolish of me.

Is this good news or what. Context! Since I don't live in Corinth, or Ephesus, or Phillipi, or in Rome, (or any of the other cities in the Med,) nor am I a Hebrew, and my name isn't Matthew, Mark, Luke or John or Titus, or Jude, or Peter, and all these books were written 2000 years ago, I guess I am off the hook completely because of context. Why I don't even have to be born again because Jesus told Nicodemus that HE had to be born again, not me. Are we thankful for context or what!

Ben, experience on NazNet has shown that "more satire" is about the best way to create the worst possible kind of discussion, which will ultimately lead to people simply ignoring you. We're trying to explain stuff here and you answer with satire. What do you want? NazNet isn't a place where you can merely write down infallible views that will never go unchallenged. Pretty much ANY view besides the fundamentals of faith will be challenged, I can guarantee you. And we'll even discuss what those fundamentals are!

So if you've come here merely to state things and consider any disagreement a personal attack that needs to be answered with satire, you've come to the wrong place. If, however, you enjoy the fellowship and are willing to be challenged in your thinking, you are very welcome and might even come to appreciate this site and fellowship

The choice is up to you.

[Hans Deventer]

In one of the past discussions on this topic, somebody supplied a link to an article that made it all very clear. Seems it was written by a forum member....anybody remember?

On second thought...it was about "abstain from any appearance of evil" and I think this was the article (http://columbiaseminary.edu/coffeetalk/060.html).

Or http://www.cresourcei.org/appearance.html ?

[Ben Jones]

I am willing to be challenged in my thinking but not when it comes to certain doctrinal areas that are as plain as the nose on your face. The Holy Spirit lives in each and every born again Christian, period.
Ben

[Hans Deventer]

I am willing to be challenged in my thinking

I doubt it. So far, I've seen several people try to explain it to you and all we get is sarcasm and remarks meant to make us look stupid. I fear you'll probably find too many stupid people here to enjoy NazNet. :basic04

[Barbara Moulton]

Ben if you go back and read this thread carefully, I don't think you'll find where anyone has said that the Holy Spirit does not reside in the individual Christian. All they are saying is that the verses you cited are not referring to the individual Christian, they are referring to the body of Christ which is the Church.

I think all would agree that we should make every effort to care for our bodies and to try not to do anything that would harm them. It just that we don't use those verses to support that belief.

For myself, as I stated in an earlier post, my desire to care for my body and health, is more about a desire that nothing would get in the way of people seeing Christ in me, than a fear of a punishment of destruction.

And that needs to go far beyond the issues of alcohol and tobacco. I abstain from both but that doesn't mean I shouldn't show care in other areas of my life.

[Ben Jones]

Ben if you go back and read this thread carefully, I don't think you'll find where anyone has said that the Holy Spirit does not reside in the individual Christian. All they are saying is that the verses you cited are not referring to the individual Christian, they are referring to the body of Christ which is the Church.

Barb,

I stand only partially corrected. Let me quote Pastor David Guzik regarding
1 Cor 3:17, "You are the temple of God: Paul will later (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) speak as individual Christians being temples. Here his emphasis is on the church as a whole (though it has application to individuals)." (Emphasis mine.)

So lets compare the similiarities in the language of the two passages. 1 Cor 3:17, "If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple."

1 Cor 6:19-20, "Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's."

One says "you are that temple" the other "your body is the temple." I take this to mean that since "the church" is made up of individual Christians, when something was written to "the church" it was written to the individual Christians within "the church."

Let me quote from the great bible commentator Matthew Henry regarding 1 Cor 3:17, "Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? It may be understood of the church of Corinth collectively, or of every single believer among them; Christian churches are temples of God. He dwells among them by his Holy Spirit. They are built together for a habitation of God through the Spirit, Eph. 2:22. Every Christian is a living temple of the living God. (Again emphasis mine.)

I remain.

Ben Jones

[Barbara Moulton]

Barb,


It's Barbara.

:)

[Billy Cox]

It's Barbara.

:)

So 'Babs' is out too. eh?

[Barbara Moulton]

So 'Babs' is out too. eh?

Absolutely. That would warrant 20 lashes with a wet noodle.

My name is Barbara. The only people who are allowed to call me Barb are my brothers and sisters who grew up calling me that. In my mid twenties I asked to be called Barbara. Even my husband doesn't shorten it. :)

[David Pettigrew]

Absolutely. That would warrant 20 lashes with a wet noodle.

My name is Barbara. The only people who are allowed to call me Barb are my brothers and sisters who grew up calling me that. In my mid twenties I asked to be called Barbara. Even my husband doesn't shorten it. :)

I think the first Mrs. Bush lets her husband call her "Barb." But, if I ever met her, I wouldn't.