Cold or Hot

[None]

God speaks through His word. He wrote the Bible in a way that can stand the test of time, talking to any of us however He feels is right for us at that moment. That doesn't change any of His literal commands or historic facts, etc., just that when we have a question for Him and we begin to read through the Scriptures, He can speak to us right then and there with the verse in front of us. Example:

Proverbs 16:33

33) The lot is cast into the lap,

but its every decision is from the LORD.

That's the verse God reminded me of for this point. True, there are deeper meanings and there are what people will say is the "most accurate" meaning of a certain metaphor used in the Bible, but the whole point of God using so many of these in the Bible is to be able to speak to us, individually, through them.

(sorry this is off topic a bit)

[Floatingaxe]

Spewing doesn't necessarily mean vomiting. Spitting out brackish water is something not out of the ordinary.

In the Greek and historic context, it means vomiting.

In Revelation is it used basically to say, "you make me sick."

Spitting out something sickening and vomiting it is interchangeable here.

No, the aren't. You can say they are, but they aren't. The Greek word emeo can only mean "to vomit." To "spit" something out, the Greek word ptuo would have been used, which means "to spit."

Furthermore, Jesus is using their water for imagery. Their lukewarm water made people sick and vomit because of the bacteria (this is historically documented). Jesus means that they literally make Him sick, they make Him want to vomit.

In other versions the words, vomit, spew and spit are used interchangeably. They indeed are interchangeable, but the meaning is more or less to vomit or spew forcibly....the meaning is retained.

[apothanein kerdos]

Spewing doesn't necessarily mean vomiting. Spitting out brackish water is something not out of the ordinary.

In the Greek and historic context, it means vomiting.

In Revelation is it used basically to say, "you make me sick."

Spitting out something sickening and vomiting it is interchangeable here.

No, the aren't. You can say they are, but they aren't. The Greek word emeo can only mean "to vomit." To "spit" something out, the Greek word ptuo would have been used, which means "to spit."

Furthermore, Jesus is using their water for imagery. Their lukewarm water made people sick and vomit because of the bacteria (this is historically documented). Jesus means that they literally make Him sick, they make Him want to vomit.

In other versions the words, vomit, spew and spit are used interchangeably. They indeed are interchangeable, but the meaning is more or less to vomit or spew forcibly....the meaning is retained.

The translations that use "spit" are simply wrong.

Can you offer anything else other than, "Other translations use it?"

[Guest shiloh357]

In other versions the words, vomit, spew and spit are used interchangeably. They indeed are interchangeable, but the meaning is more or less to vomit or spew forcibly....the meaning is retained.

Well, you need to examine it not in how other translations have it, but rather how it would have been understood by the original audience, particularly in light of their experience with disease ridden, lukewarm water. Since lukewarm water could be drunk due to the problems with hygene and sanitation to a a degree that one would become violently ill from drinking it, the imagery Jesus used would have directly related to their common experience and would have made an unmistakable point, and sent a poignant message to congregation at Laodecia. Because of our modern water treatment advantages, lukewarm water does not really pose the threat for us today that it did for them, and so to some degree we are so separated from those conditions, it is easy to see why we miss an important component of that imagery.

I think the interpretative problems are compounded by the fact, that "hot" and "cold" with respect to Christians is never used anywhere else in the New Testament, and so there is no frame of reference against which to define what a "hot" or "cold" Christian is. The definitions of "hot" and "cold" are being subjectively supplied by modern Christians and unfortunately imposed on the text.

[exrockstar]

You are either a "hot water" Christian who brings healing, a cold water Christian who offeres refreshment and edification, OR you are lukewarm (not serving God, but rather living in enmity with God). Lukewarm "Christians" are frauds, and that is exactly how Jesus pictures them.

that sounds great but can you provide scripture to strengthen your position. ... 3xR0c|<stAr

[EricH]

You are either a "hot water" Christian who brings healing, a cold water Christian who offeres refreshment and edification, OR you are lukewarm (not serving God, but rather living in enmity with God). Lukewarm "Christians" are frauds, and that is exactly how Jesus pictures them.

that sounds great but can you provide scripture to strengthen your position. ... 3xR0c|<stAr

His conclusion is based on the historical backgrounds of the text. See previous posts by me and others in this thread

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?s=&a...st&p=875663

[Guest shiloh357]

You are either a "hot water" Christian who brings healing, a cold water Christian who offeres refreshment and edification, OR you are lukewarm (not serving God, but rather living in enmity with God). Lukewarm "Christians" are frauds, and that is exactly how Jesus pictures them.

that sounds great but can you provide scripture to strengthen your position. ... 3xR0c|<stAr

I have already provided all the necessary evidence ad nauseum. I have not been at a loss with respect to support. The Laodecian text and the historical background of the text are what I have consistently cited.

What is missing is any Scripture or historical buttress from those who say that "hot" and "cold" in the Laodecian passage must refer to "fervent" and "antagonistic," respectively. There are no other references for "hot" and "cold" with respect to describing types of Christians. So, all that is left is to examine how the original audience would have understood Jesus' words as related to them, specifically as a congregation.

Our modern concept of being "on fire" for Jesus would have been foreign to believers in the 1st century. They simply did not think in those terms. The same applies to our use of "hot" and "cold." I am not saying that we are wrong, but we need to find a way to apply those terms without violating Scripture by imposing them on texts that do not have those concepts in view.

For example, if you want to talk about "middle-of-the-road" or "fence-riding" Christians, instead of misusing "lukewarm," why not use the passage in James that speaks of being double-minded? That better communicates message that many people incorrectly try to read into the Laodecian passage.

[Floatingaxe]

You are either a "hot water" Christian who brings healing, a cold water Christian who offeres refreshment and edification, OR you are lukewarm (not serving God, but rather living in enmity with God). Lukewarm "Christians" are frauds, and that is exactly how Jesus pictures them.

that sounds great but can you provide scripture to strengthen your position. ... 3xR0c|<stAr

It sounds great because it's true.

[exrockstar]

You are either a "hot water" Christian who brings healing, a cold water Christian who offeres refreshment and edification, OR you are lukewarm (not serving God, but rather living in enmity with God). Lukewarm "Christians" are frauds, and that is exactly how Jesus pictures them.

that sounds great but can you provide scripture to strengthen your position. ... 3xR0c|<stAr

It sounds great because it's true.

i like to look at scripture. i dont base my beliefs off emotions or how great it sounds.

[exrockstar]

i like to look at scripture. i dont base my beliefs off emotions or how great it sounds.

History testifies of this also. What do you find the problem with this explaination?

i dont have issue with the history.

however, to say Christians are suppose to offer "refreshment or edification" like cool water and vice versa is just

symbolism not supported by scripture. not to my knowledge.

as i said...it sounds great.

this is Christ saying "i wish you were refreshing or i wish you were healing but instead your a fraud"

that does not have scripture support.

im not arguing the history but the "healer or refreshment" are not actions of what a Christian is supposed to do.

we provide the word. God heals. God refreshes through it.