An Important Question from the Apostle Paul

[Kristin]

Who will bring a charge? Who, is Satan and his minions which includes people who belong to Satan. Jesus is our advocate, which is like our lawyer. He is also our Salvation, which means he paid the acceptable price. He stands in our stead. We are found NOT GUILTY, by reason that the PRICE FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS AND SIN HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL ALREADY. Yay!  Thank you Jesus!

[Jostler]

5 hours ago, lftc said:

Romans 8

³³ Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

How do you answer the question?

I think i can understand how  some have been confused by this.  Paul is using a rhetorical question with an "understood" answer "No one."

There is no "unanswered" question to address.   As maryjane previously  pointed out?  Maybe you could clarify  the idea or issue you are wanting to discuss?  I am not seeing a question there either.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Jostler

[missmuffet]

Satan is the accuser but Jesus disarmed him at the cross. We are God's chosen people. He will save us. He will take us in the rapture of the Church before He brings on wrath and judgment to the earth. 

Revelation 3:10

Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

[lftc]

On 9/20/2019 at 1:05 AM, Jostler said:

I think i can understand how  some have been confused by this.  Paul is using a rhetorical question with an "understood" answer "No one."

There is no "unanswered" question to address.   As maryjane previously  pointed out?  Maybe you could clarify  the idea or issue you are wanting to discuss?  I am not seeing a question there either.

I wrote a long piece about understanding rhetoric in general, and rhetorical questions in specific.  But then I deleted it.  Here is my summary:

Rhetorical questions are subset of questions.  I think by your statement "I am not seeing a question there", you mean that you are not seeing an unanwered question there.  And I agree Paul answered that question completely. 

Rhetorical questions require an answer from the listener in order to form an agreement with the speaker - otherwise the point of the emphasis is lost and the rhetorical question is meaningless. 

I understand the point that some mode in this topic:  if this passage of scripture is a test and you are only looking for unanswered questions, there are none.  Just like the whole of scripture.

But like the whole of scripture, if the answer a person arrives at in their belief is not in alignment with the meaning intended that person will have cascading belief problems.

Edited September 23, 2019 by lftc

[lftc]

If God does not condemn me, any who do condemn me are usurping his position.

I'll stick with my merciful God, who does not condemn me.

[Alive]

Answer:

No one can 'effectually' bring charge or condemn--because any charge brought against us is absorbed by our Lord and Savior.

Paul was pointing to an aspect of our Lord's work. This one along with a myriad more, paint a wonderful picture.

[lftc]

38 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

Who is condemning you? Asking for clarification due to confusion is not condemnation.

Sister:  I know you are not condemning me.  My comment was directed to the whole world.  It was not about you. 

If I have one wish for you: feel loved. Now.

[JTC]

On 9/23/2019 at 10:08 AM, lftc said:

I wrote a long piece about understanding rhetoric in general, and rhetorical questions in specific.  But then I deleted it.  Here is my summary: Rhetorical questions are subset of questions. 

Rhetorical questions require an answer from the listener in order to form an agreement with the speaker - otherwise the point of the emphasis is lost and the rhetorical question is meaningless.

Hi Iftc,    I kinda wish you didn't delete it bc I can think if 2 people who I don't think even know what the words "rhetoric" & "rhetorical" mean. (btw, I'm no longer speaking of scripture) What do you think of someone refusing to answer a rhetorical question bc he feels that would dignify the question? Again, this doesn't mean the Bible, but suppose someone asks you something you know they know (or at least should) the answer to. This happened to me twice this year and I didn't answer bc I didn't want to dignify their insulting question.

[lftc]

2 hours ago, JTC said:

Hi Iftc,    I kinda wish you didn't delete it bc I can think if 2 people who I don't think even know what the words "rhetoric" & "rhetorical" mean. (btw, I'm no longer speaking of scripture) What do you think of someone refusing to answer a rhetorical question bc he feels that would dignify the question? Again, this doesn't mean the Bible, but suppose someone asks you something you know they know (or at least should) the answer to. This happened to me twice this year and I didn't answer bc I didn't want to dignify their insulting question.

There are many resources for reading about such things, although caution is needed: as with anything on the web these days, read many before allowing yourself to form an opninion.  THe excersize of studying a word, its definitions and history (etomology) is helpful in understanding many parts of our existence, including the scriptures.  However, it took years of such study before some concepts finally coalesced in my mind.  Not that I am any kind of a model ("rats feet over broken glass" and other such).

I'll write here my summaries for your use if you find them helpful.

Rhetoric is a very old word and consequently has several nuanced meanings.  The broadest sense is simply the art of communicating effectively.  Rhetoric was a required series of courses in the early western universities.

People who study language, human communications and other related topics develop ways of categorizing what they observe.  When studying how people communicate (rhetoric) they observed and named several common techniques.  They call these techniques "devices".  One of the common devices is a question where the answer is assumed.  Since it is a part of rhetoric, they called it a "rhetorical question".

That is the simple answer. 

But allow me to go further: since rhetoric is the ART of communicating EFFECTIVELY, any rhetorical device must work towards that goal.  Since a rhetorical question is a question that assumes an answer, it is necessary that the speaker and the listener share the assumed answer, otherwise the speaker's entire message can be misunderstood, or considered by the listener to be false.  In other words, if the listener does not agree with the answer assumed by the speaker, the listener will likely disagree with the entire statement.  And the art of rhetoric looks more like a jackson pollock painting.  (no offense to any Pollock fans, in fact, I assume my rhetoric as presented on this forum may be somewhat like Pollock's visual art).

Hopefully that above paragraphs at least make it clear that a rhetorical question is:
- a communication technique, intended to help convey a concept
- a question that has an assumed answer
- the concept will only be conveyed if a similar answer is assumed by the speaker and the listener

In your post you stated "Again, this doesn't mean the Bible, but suppose someone asks you something you know they know (or at least should) the answer to"
 You could be refering to any number of posts on this forum.  You could be using the same exact technique with me here.  You could be asking a question related to your relationships and conversation.  But rather than take your question as a LEADING question, I will answer it on the assumption that someone was asking you a question that they insisted was a rhetorical question.

Everyone uses rhetorical questions a lot.  Or at least they attempt to use them.  Sometimes very nicely. Sometimes the rhetoric part fails as the question does not indicate a clear conclusion.

For example, imagine you are sitting in a cafe in Harare, listening to 3 fellows discuss politics:
- FellowA : "The people can't think properly anymore.  How did that idiot Mnangagwa get elected?"
FellowB may think that Mnangagwa is brilliant and therefore conclude that the people "think quite nicely, thank you very much"
FellowC may agree with the rhetorical question, and therefore the conclusion as well. 

In order to avoid bloodshed, FellowB will probably choose to not respond.  So sometimes it is in the best interest of brotherhood to not respond.  Especially if the conversation is marked with conflict.

BUT - based on your statement, it sounds more like the person may be asking a LEADING question.  Another technique that is quite common - everyone does it.  Again, in simple: a leading question is a question where the speaker intends the listener to infer an answer that supports the speakers point of view.  Nothing wrong with that, we all do it.

But in a conflict discussion, you may sense that if you acknowledge a point infered by the leading question, you may be logically forced to agree to a conclusion.  And you might, unless you know that the leading question does not necessarily lead to the false conclusion and can articulate that logic.

Refusing to answer in a discussion with friends will often appear like avoiding the subject.  But it is often helpful to simply say something like "I think I see where you are going with that question and I am not in agreement with the conclusion.  Please let me think it over and get back with you."  If the conversation is heated no-one is going to change their mind anyway.  Just like here on the forum.

All this is outside a court of law (in your favorite country).  Inside a court of law, people's lives are daily destroyed by use of communication devices to sway the jury (easily swayed) or the justice (easily swayed).  Hence the beauty of God's law, but no-one want to apply that to anything anymore.

[JTC]

3 hours ago, lftc said:

There are many resources for reading about such things, although caution is needed: as with anything on the web these days, read many before allowing yourself to form an opninion.  THe excersize of studying a word, its definitions and history (etomology) is helpful in understanding many parts of our existence, including the scriptures.  However, it took years of such study before some concepts finally coalesced in my mind.  Not that I am any kind of a model ("rats feet over broken glass" and other such).

I'll write here my summaries for your use if you find them helpful.

Rhetoric is a very old word and consequently has several nuanced meanings.  The broadest sense is simply the art of communicating effectively.  Rhetoric was a required series of courses in the early western universities.

People who study language, human communications and other related topics develop ways of categorizing what they observe.  When studying how people communicate (rhetoric) they observed and named several common techniques.  They call these techniques "devices".  One of the common devices is a question where the answer is assumed.  Since it is a part of rhetoric, they called it a "rhetorical question".

That is the simple answer. 

But allow me to go further: since rhetoric is the ART of communicating EFFECTIVELY, any rhetorical device must work towards that goal.  Since a rhetorical question is a question that assumes an answer, it is necessary that the speaker and the listener share the assumed answer, otherwise the speaker's entire message can be misunderstood, or considered by the listener to be false.  In other words, if the listener does not agree with the answer assumed by the speaker, the listener will likely disagree with the entire statement.  And the art of rhetoric looks more like a jackson pollock painting.  (no offense to any Pollock fans, in fact, I assume my rhetoric as presented on this forum may be somewhat like Pollock's visual art).

Hopefully that above paragraphs at least make it clear that a rhetorical question is:
- a communication technique, intended to help convey a concept
- a question that has an assumed answer
- the concept will only be conveyed if a similar answer is assumed by the speaker and the listener

In your post you stated "Again, this doesn't mean the Bible, but suppose someone asks you something you know they know (or at least should) the answer to"
 You could be refering to any number of posts on this forum.  You could be using the same exact technique with me here.  You could be asking a question related to your relationships and conversation.  But rather than take your question as a LEADING question, I will answer it on the assumption that someone was asking you a question that they insisted was a rhetorical question.

Everyone uses rhetorical questions a lot.  Or at least they attempt to use them.  Sometimes very nicely. Sometimes the rhetoric part fails as the question does not indicate a clear conclusion.

For example, imagine you are sitting in a cafe in Harare, listening to 3 fellows discuss politics:
- FellowA : "The people can't think properly anymore.  How did that idiot Mnangagwa get elected?"
FellowB may think that Mnangagwa is brilliant and therefore conclude that the people "think quite nicely, thank you very much"
FellowC may agree with the rhetorical question, and therefore the conclusion as well. 

In order to avoid bloodshed, FellowB will probably choose to not respond.  So sometimes it is in the best interest of brotherhood to not respond.  Especially if the conversation is marked with conflict.

BUT - based on your statement, it sounds more like the person may be asking a LEADING question.  Another technique that is quite common - everyone does it.  Again, in simple: a leading question is a question where the speaker intends the listener to infer an answer that supports the speakers point of view.  Nothing wrong with that, we all do it.

But in a conflict discussion, you may sense that if you acknowledge a point infered by the leading question, you may be logically forced to agree to a conclusion.  And you might, unless you know that the leading question does not necessarily lead to the false conclusion and can articulate that logic.

Refusing to answer in a discussion with friends will often appear like avoiding the subject.  But it is often helpful to simply say something like "I think I see where you are going with that question and I am not in agreement with the conclusion.  Please let me think it over and get back with you."  If the conversation is heated no-one is going to change their mind anyway.  Just like here on the forum.

All this is outside a court of law (in your favorite country).  Inside a court of law, people's lives are daily destroyed by use of communication devices to sway the jury (easily swayed) or the justice (easily swayed).  Hence the beauty of God's law, but no-one want to apply that to anything anymore.

Iftc, wowee that was a very complex answer you gave. I dare say almost no one in my neck of the world knows any of that. I only learned by happenstance, a few years ago, that rhetoric once was the art of effective communication. I never knew.

    All this is proving what I already knew. Here in the USA misunderstandings are all too common. Thanks for responding. (PS. I'm going offline)

God Bless