Welcome to Gaia! ::

Greenmjolnir
If Jesus ended the Old Law of GOD, not meaning the old law that the Religous officals made.
The Sermon on the Mount in Mathew 5-6-7, has been called the Constitution of Christianity, which follows by the original laws proclaimed by God throughout the Old Testiment. In this majestic passage, as in Psalm 119, the values and obligations of obedience are magnified and presented in their true perspective.

Matthew 5:17-19.

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
What do you believe "fulfil" means?
Greenmjolnir
Elf Lord Chiewn
Greenmjolnir
AciDSniper
Greenmjolnir

...

First let's start with end of the old law in Colossians 2, Acts 15 and the beginning of Leviticus to show who Moses actually meant the law to apply to. If still don't believe me read Deuteronomy 28 and you'll see a stark contrast between a certain civil law and the teachings of Christ. Then you have to take a look at the translational issues of the New Testament condemnations which hinge completely on a word Paul made up and only used twice and a reference to what could easily be pederasty. All of which is explained here in Ananel's thesis.
The word Christ used for fulfil can be translated to mean to render complete although if the old law did stand it wouldn't apply to gentiles in the first place. Otherwise it would conflict with the Law of Agape and his stance on the Sabbath laws. It has remained the doctrine since the early church that you do not have to convert to judaism before you become a Christian. If homosexuality were a sin under the new covenant it would be an issue of relationship with God related to the risk of sexual idolatry which would only apply to believers.
I'm not Catholic so could really care less how the Pope and the Bishops are suggesting people interpret the text. Now as for the political side of this there is no evidence to support these insane predictions such as drastic drops in marriage rates, birth rates or the supposed over strain of the medical care system. While on the over side it is a horrible injustice deny people basic equal rights such as joint insurance, tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, custody issues, joint pension plans, etc.


But the simple fact is that Jesus never addressed Homosexuality, there for he never overturned the former law from the Old Testimate.

That's incredibly silly.
Also, the Apostles disagree with you.
Also, Yeshua disagrees with you.

Greenmjolnir
Therefore, the old laws that applyed to Homosexual acts, would still apply in the new form of worship that he created.

He didn't create a new kind.
He removed the old rules that everyone kept breaking.

So people should still be stoned for it?
And shrimp should not be eaten?
And we should send away women on their periods?
And masturbation is a death-worthy offense?
Also, we'd all have to be Israelites for the law to have potentially applied to us at all.


You take this wrong. Those were of the rules of the Religous Officals. And those were not changed, but modified upon. Fogiveness is what modified those. If you do something as that, it can be forgiving, and the eating habits as well as the period thing was for health reasons at the time. Things were alot more diseased then.

And the old Isreali laws were mostly made by man.
Actually, they aren't rules of the religious officials. The law about masturbation, for example, is clearly attributed to YHWH.

They were fulfilled. That means game over. Old law no longer applies.
And it certainly doesn't apply to Gentiles.

Care to prove that YHWH made food laws for health reasons?

I contest that those laws were mostly made by man. Please prove this as well, and explain which ones.
Greenmjolnir
You take this wrong. Those were of the rules of the Religous Officals. And those were not changed, but modified upon. Fogiveness is what modified those. If you do something as that, it can be forgiving, and the eating habits as well as the period thing was for health reasons at the time. Things were alot more diseased then.

And the old Isreali laws were mostly made by man.


Acts 15:5, ...so, they were to obey the whole law of moses?

Do you, really, honestly, truly, want me to pull up biblegateway and cite for you every single occasion in which the "Law of Moses" is used in the OT and NT? Do you? Or, are you willing to take my word for it when I tell you that on every single occasion it is used as the unseparated Levitical Code in its entirety, the Law God gave to Moses? The only seperations come in phrases such as "what was contained within the Law of Moses" and so forth. The Law of Moses is unseparated. It is whole. And there's something else that's important:

God made it.

Don't you try to pawn off Leviticus as solely man's work and claim any level of biblical inerrancy in your attitude.
Deep Vermillion
Greenmjolnir
If Jesus ended the Old Law of GOD, not meaning the old law that the Religous officals made.
The Sermon on the Mount in Mathew 5-6-7, has been called the Constitution of Christianity, which follows by the original laws proclaimed by God throughout the Old Testiment. In this majestic passage, as in Psalm 119, the values and obligations of obedience are magnified and presented in their true perspective.

Matthew 5:17-19.

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
What do you believe "fulfil" means?


Furthermore, he must either redefinte "Law of Moses" in that specific case of Acts 15 and justify doing so through the Greek (Note: Impossible. I have never seen anyone actually attempt this. No scholar would. Even the hacks aren't that stupid.). Otherwise, the Council of Jerusalem in this chapter removes Levitical restraints, including Circumcision itself. Yes, Circumcision, the OT Baptism, the setting apart of someone as the son of God, the line of Abraham, one of the Chosen People. It was the thing by which a Jew was known as a Jew, a servant of the most High God. It indoctrinated them into the family and line of Abraham and was a visual sign of their participation in the promises made to Abraham, the promises which included the Savior Himself.

...Yeah, you're going to have to give a really solid definition of "Fulfill," Green, because either your position condemns the Council of Jerusalem, including Peter and Paul themselves, or you have got some really funky Greek gymnastics ahead of you, and I mean some really funky ones.
Greenmjolnir
But the simple fact is that Jesus never addressed Homosexuality, there for he never overturned the former law from the Old Testimate. Therefore, the old laws that applyed to Homosexual acts, would still apply in the new form of worship that he created.


Forgive this jab, but kindly ensure you never ******** your wife during her period, or I'll personally see that you're thrown out of the assembly as per Leviticus 20.

You place yourself under those strictures, and you'll be held to ALL of them. Paul was quite explicit on that subject in Galatians, Green.
AciDSniper
Greenmjolnir

But the simple fact is that Jesus never addressed Homosexuality, there for he never overturned the former law from the Old Testimate. Therefore, the old laws that applyed to Homosexual acts, would still apply in the new form of worship that he created.

By that logic I could say Jesus never addressed forcing a woman to marry her rapist while the only punishment to the rapist is that he only has to pay her father a pound a quarter of silver and the next time you get something ritually unclean on your clothes be sure to soak them "until the evening".


But he did address that on several occations. Would the commandment of ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' Does this not cover such a vile act of hate within it?
Didn't I mention that Paul was against marriage altogether? So why does being "againt" an idea make you bad? neutral
Greenmjolnir
AciDSniper
Greenmjolnir

But the simple fact is that Jesus never addressed Homosexuality, there for he never overturned the former law from the Old Testimate. Therefore, the old laws that applyed to Homosexual acts, would still apply in the new form of worship that he created.

By that logic I could say Jesus never addressed forcing a woman to marry her rapist while the only punishment to the rapist is that he only has to pay her father a pound a quarter of silver and the next time you get something ritually unclean on your clothes be sure to soak them "until the evening".


But he did address that on several occations. Would the commandment of ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' Does this not cover such a vile act of hate within it?

Through that very same passage he states all of the law is derived from from loving your neighbor and loving YHWH which invalidates all health issues and issues of ritual cleanliness outside of actually living within an ancient jewish theocracy.
Greenmjolnir
AciDSniper
Greenmjolnir

But the simple fact is that Jesus never addressed Homosexuality, there for he never overturned the former law from the Old Testimate. Therefore, the old laws that applyed to Homosexual acts, would still apply in the new form of worship that he created.

By that logic I could say Jesus never addressed forcing a woman to marry her rapist while the only punishment to the rapist is that he only has to pay her father a pound a quarter of silver and the next time you get something ritually unclean on your clothes be sure to soak them "until the evening".


But he did address that on several occations. Would the commandment of ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' Does this not cover such a vile act of hate within it?


I apologise. I was wrong when I said Jesus never addressed Marriage. He does so in this passage. In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus said:

" 'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' "

and if that doesn't state what marrige is, I don't know what does.
Unemphatic
Didn't I mention that Paul was against marriage altogether? So why does being "againt" an idea make you bad? neutral

I think against is a little too strong but rather that he suggested as a means of absolutely minimizing the risk of sexual idolatry.
Unemphatic
Didn't I mention that Paul was against marriage altogether?

Yes you did.
Can you be a bit more detailed?
Like, what exactly makes you think that Paul was against marriage altogether?
Quote:
So why does being "againt" an idea make you bad? neutral

As a Christian, if you follow something against His teachings, then you may be called a "bad" Christian.
Here is something I found online and I think it might help in this debate. It is not my view, so don't attack my own self for this article:



Did Jesus Bless Homosexuality?
Warren Throckmorton, PhD
October 28, 2005

Many gay religionists insist that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality and thus could not have opposed it. Often conservatives counter that He taught against any form of sexual expression other than heterosexual marriage, so He did not need to specify every sexual act outside of marriage for condemnation. What is the correct position?

Certainly, Jesus did address the topic of sexual ethics and marriage. In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus said: "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Jesus’ disciples were nervous at this teaching. In fact, since Jesus made divorce much more difficult to attain than Moses did, they wondered aloud if marriage was such a good thing after all ("If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Matt 19:10). Like many people today, the disciples thought the fidelity and permanence taught by Jesus might be too difficult for anyone to follow.

To the skepticism of the disciples, Jesus responded, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
(Matthew 19:11-12).

For years, I did not give much thought to who Jesus might have been referencing here by the use of the term eunuchs. I assumed that all eunuchs were males who were castrated or otherwise physically incapable to have sexual relations. Recently, however, I have begun to wonder if the Greek word eunouchoi (eunuchs) might also include someone without natural attraction to the opposite sex.

Could Jesus be referring here to male homosexuals as being among those who experience no other sex attraction, and if so, does this passage signal the blessing of Jesus on homosexuality?

A recent paper by a Norwegian theologian, Raghnild Schanke, asserts that Jesus was indeed referring to several categories of people including asexual persons and those who would fit the modern concept of homosexuality. She notes that many eunuchs in antiquity were capable of sexual relations but did not seem to have natural desire for women. She amasses an impressive array of ancient references to some eunuchs being disinterested in the opposite sex even though physically capable.

To address these questions, I turned to one of the top biblical scholars in the world regarding sexuality, Dr. Robert Gagnon, of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Author of the encyclopedic, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Dr. Gagnon commented, “I think that the phrase "eunuchs who were born so from the womb of mother" (Matt 19:12) is probably an inclusive group consisting of any man who lacks sexual interest in women. This group would include both men who have genital abnormalities that result in impotence and men whose genitals are still capable of begetting children. It would also include both asexual persons and persons who, in time, develop exclusive same-sex attractions.”

Regarding Jesus’ phrase “eunuchs because they were born that way,” Dr. Gagnon said, “The saying does suggest a recognition on the part of Jesus and early Christianity that some men are born in such a way that they do not develop, as adolescents and adults, other-sex attractions, for whatever reason.” Such men are not born gay, but rather, without responsiveness to the opposite sex. Attractions to the same sex may or may not develop during the formative years via a combination of biological and environmental factors.

There is a modern-day, experiential validity to this interpretation. I have counseled individuals who from their earliest recollections have little or no attraction to the opposite sex. Also, the opposite-sex desire of some is hindered due to traumatic circumstances in life, whether physical injury or emotional trauma (“eunuchs made that way by men”). And still others choose celibacy for “the kingdom of heaven.” Note that Jesus does not condemn such persons for their situation.

So do homosexual relationships have the endorsement of Jesus? Not so, says Dr. Gagnon: “The implication of Jesus' saying is that all such 'born eunuchs' have no option for engaging in sexual activity outside of a man-woman bond.” Fidelity to this teaching “does not require that one become exclusively heterosexually responsive with no homosexual temptation. However, it does require abstinence from homosexual bonds.”

For classical Christianity, the union of male and female is much more than a sociological convenience but provides imagery for some of its central teachings (e.g., Christ as the bridegroom and the church as his bride). The teachings of Jesus in Matthew 19 deepen this commitment to male-female unions by very specifically considering people who either are unable or choose not to form such sexual relationships.

Thus, if one supports same-sex relations or unions as sound ecclesiastical policy, one must do it with some other philosophical base than can be found in these teachings of Jesus.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Warren Throckmorton, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy in the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City (PA) College. Dr. Throckmorton is past-president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association and is the producer of the documentary, I Do Exist about sexual identity formation. His columns have been published by over 70 newspapers nationwide and can be contacted through his website at www.drthrockmorton.com.


http://www.realityresources.com/didjesus.htm
Greenmjolnir
Greenmjolnir
AciDSniper
Greenmjolnir

But the simple fact is that Jesus never addressed Homosexuality, there for he never overturned the former law from the Old Testimate. Therefore, the old laws that applyed to Homosexual acts, would still apply in the new form of worship that he created.

By that logic I could say Jesus never addressed forcing a woman to marry her rapist while the only punishment to the rapist is that he only has to pay her father a pound a quarter of silver and the next time you get something ritually unclean on your clothes be sure to soak them "until the evening".


But he did address that on several occations. Would the commandment of ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' Does this not cover such a vile act of hate within it?


I apologise. I was wrong when I said Jesus never addressed Marriage. He does so in this passage. In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus said:

" 'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' "

and if that doesn't state what marrige is, I don't know what does.

As we've addressed many times before the blessing of marriage is a blessing not a commandment. That would defy Paul's stance of avoiding marriage all together.
Greenmjolnir

I apologise. I was wrong when I said Jesus never addressed Marriage. He does so in this passage. In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus said:

" 'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' "

and if that doesn't state what marrige is, I don't know what does.


I have been following this conversation.

I am confused as to if the Bible is silent as to Homosexuality as you say, that makes in even a questionable sin.

The Bible is "silent" on many things, this is no way makes them a sin. In fact it means the opposite. If it does not violate the Law of Agape, it is not a sin.

As to the verse on marriage, again, this does not say only.
Ananel
Furthermore, he must either redefinte "Law of Moses" in that specific case of Acts 15 and justify doing so through the Greek (Note: Impossible. I have never seen anyone actually attempt this. No scholar would. Even the hacks aren't that stupid.). Otherwise, the Council of Jerusalem in this chapter removes Levitical restraints, including Circumcision itself. Yes, Circumcision, the OT Baptism, the setting apart of someone as the son of God, the line of Abraham, one of the Chosen People. It was the thing by which a Jew was known as a Jew, a servant of the most High God. It indoctrinated them into the family and line of Abraham and was a visual sign of their participation in the promises made to Abraham, the promises which included the Savior Himself.

...Yeah, you're going to have to give a really solid definition of "Fulfill," Green, because either your position condemns the Council of Jerusalem, including Peter and Paul themselves, or you have got some really funky Greek gymnastics ahead of you, and I mean some really funky ones.
Not to mention explain how some parts of Leviticus are made by man and others aren't, and how he can tell the two apart.

Greenmjolnir
I apologise. I was wrong when I said Jesus never addressed Marriage. He does so in this passage. In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus said:

" 'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' "

and if that doesn't state what marrige is, I don't know what does.
He certainly gives his opinion on marriage:
Matthew 19
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


Also, hint: the passage is about DIVORCE, not marriage.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff