Jude verse

dayhiker

Mature veteran
Sep 13, 2006
15,557
5,287
MA
✟220,067.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I was reading Jude last night and I came across this verse:

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." (Jude 1:7)
Good verse John,
Did you do any research on the context and the verse.
My Greek interlinear has "as Sodom and Gommora and the cities around them in the like manner to those commiting fornication and going away after different flesh, are set forth as example undergoing vengence of eternal fire."

Looking a little further I my Online Bible says Strong defines this word as "one not of the same nature, form, class, kind; different."

Seems to me Jude understood these men's desire to be for angels, as this fits the context also with verse 6 talking about angels that didn't keep their first estate(KJV).

What are others thoughts on this verse?
dayhiker
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Different flesh...not same flesh. The Greek uses heteros, not homos.

Humans are of the same flesh.

It is referring to angels. And since angels =/= humans, its an excellent proof against inappropriate behavior with animals.

Also, note Genesis 6:1.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I always believed sexual immorality to include homosexuality, then again, I don't have a Greek or Hebrew bible on hand. (I should order one)

However, in the NIV footnote, it says that they had the latest Hebrew and Greek sources available to them when they conjured up the NIV bible.

Since I believe the apostles believed in Adam and Eve and made many references to relationships between men and women, especially how several of these apostles were Jewish, I always believed that any different form of relationship outside the contexts of a marriage was viewed as immoral, or not pertaining to good morales. In O.T. Law, there are also rules against violating a women's virginity before she is married.
But this is my opinion.
Please note in my bible, NIV, that it also lists homosexuality to be a sin in the subject guide. This is the listings for homosexuality according to it:

Homosexuality
result of sin, Romans 1:18-32 ---p.1176
result of sin, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11-p.1199; 1 Timothy 1:9-11---p.1257

Please note that under the title "SEX" in the subject index, 1 Corinthians 6:9-20 -p.1199 is listed as immorality (and includes the verses in Corinthians 6:9-11 listed under the title "homosexuality" in the subject index.

So, from my reasoning, how the bible's central focus is on man-to-women relationships, the story of Adam and Eve, warnings against women (and not men) prostitution (although men prostitution is listed a few times from what I can remember. Correct me on this one if I am wrong), adultery between men and women, the belief that in marriage a man leaves his parents to become united to his wife and become one flesh, talk of divorce between a man and a women, many passages referring to Christ as the husband and the church as his bride, the book of Hosea where God's central focus is that his two brides (Israel and Judea) are unfaithful and committed spiritual adultery against Him, and the different advices given throughout the bible to husbands and wive relationships as well have me to reason that Paul is right in coining in Corinthians that men and women exchanged natural relationships, that is between a man and a women, for ones that were different including those that are same-gendered.

I know some of you may argue because "A doesn't say this, therefore, B is not what A is" but if you use reasoning to gather what everyones view was at the time, and on the many rules and verses that talked about relationships, you don't need a verse telling what that "homosexuality"is a sin.

Apostles believe in Adam and Eve, Apostles talk against having bad morales that violate what a godly relationship is involving sex, adultery chiefly refers to men and women not being faithful with one another in marriage, Christ refers to his church as his women(bride) and himself as her husband(groom), God personally refers to Israel and Judea as women who weren't faithful to him....and so on....

you can gather what was viewed as a normal relationship.
Top that off with the fact that God created man and and women different that "join" together like a puzzle piece, (do I need to say more?), and you have a conclusion on things.

In nature, sex is instinctive and does not naturally occur, regardless of how many animals do it. I saw on discovery the other day that two males actually commited homosexual acts to help attract a female mate, but this does not mean that they are homosexual. Although, this is what I had watched on a channel, and this is just a note on things, not a conclusive statement. I didn't say that there aren't homosexual animals.

Fish are more delicate than animals as a result of how they mate and spawn. From what I recall, they need more precise conditions to mate. Male fish tend to deposit their sperm and then go away (correct me if I am wrong). I don't recall a male fish going up to another male fish and depositing it's sperm.

In the animal kingdom, such as dogs, acts of homosexuality are a means to dominate other animals, and it appears this way as well in human nature too, which we will find when people go to jail. Men in jail will express their dominance over other jailers by raping other men. The phrase "don't drop the soap" comes from this fact.
God bless. I hope my post brings enlightenment and not offense to people.
God bless.

- Rob
 
Upvote 0

dayhiker

Mature veteran
Sep 13, 2006
15,557
5,287
MA
✟220,067.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
H Rob,
Thanks for the read.
Your last paragraph about homosexual acts to dominate others is actaully my understanding of what is going on in the Sodom area. The other referances in the OT show these people to not be hospitable and not showing justice to those that needed them.
So the angels that were coming to see if the reposts were true. Both Abraham and Loted bowed to the angels as one would bow to a king, showing the most respect one could show. The men of Sodom did the exact opposite in wanting to homosexually rape these angelic visitors. So just as Jesus said about Isreal is a parable of the vineyard owner who went into a far country and sent servants to colloect the income from his land. But the servants abused and sent the servant back without any money. Finally, the owner sent his son thinking they would respect him. But they killed him. Jesus then asked what would the owner do. The Jews answere correctly that they the owner would sent judgment on the people that worked the vineyard.

As I read Sodom, God finally sends his angels to see if the Sondomites are treating people as evil as its been reported. Sure enough they are so they get judgement. And so Sodom and Gomorah as become examples that God will judge evil close to 40 times in the Bible and preachers have used it ever sense as well.

dayhiker
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
H Rob,
Thanks for the read.
Your last paragraph about homosexual acts to dominate others is actaully my understanding of what is going on in the Sodom area.

Your right, but because this section of the forum is more about homosexuality being a sin or not being a sin, I focused more on that issue.

I do support what you say about Sodom and Gomorrah committing inappropriate behavior with animals against the Angels. Then again, I grew up thinking Mankind and Angels both as being created in God's image, since in the bible, passages explain that Angels look like people and are mistaken as divine people by men. Even in the scriptures we are told that we may have entertained Angels without even knowing it.
 
Upvote 0

dayhiker

Mature veteran
Sep 13, 2006
15,557
5,287
MA
✟220,067.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hi Rob,
That is interesting, I'd not heard of anyone thinking that angels were created in the image of God before. My view is that they weren't.
Because of how I understand Jude to speak of angels, I don't think its an honest interpretation to say its speaks of God judging homosexuals.

dayhiker
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jud 1:7 ως 5613 ADV σοδομα 4670 N-NPN και 2532 CONJ γομορρα 1116 N-NSF και 2532 CONJ αι 3588 T-NPF περι 4012 PREP αυτας 846 P-APF πολεις 4172 N-NPF τον 3588 T-ASM ομοιον 3664 A-ASM τουτοις 5125 D-DPM τροπον 5158 N-ASM εκπορνευσασαι 1608 V-AAP-NPF και 2532 CONJ απελθουσαι 565 V-2AAP-NPF οπισω 3694 ADV σαρκος 4561 N-GSF ετερας 2087 A-GSF προκεινται4295 V-PNI-3P δειγμα1164 N-ASN πυρος4442 N-GSN αιωνιου166 A-GSN δικην1349 N-ASF υπεχουσαι5254 V-PAP-NPF
The verbs translated “giving themselves over to fornication” i.e. εκπορνευσασαι and “going after,” i.e. - απελθουσαι are AAP and 2AAP, respectively, aorist, active, participles, an action began in the past, continuing into the futue.
God knew about the long history of sins, the “outlaw inappropriate content, [size=+1]*[/size] ,” of Sodom when he was talking with Abraham, at amre, before he went down to Sodom. Gen 13:13, Gen 18:20-26.

The perverts of Sodom were prevented from doing anything against the angels, by blindness, and certainly did not do anything with any flesh afterward. Gen 19:24ff.
Robertson Word Pictures in the N.T. -- Jud 1:7 {Even as} (\ως\). Just "as." The third instance (Jude passes by the deluge) in Jude, the cities of the plain. {The cities about them} (\hai peri autas poleis\). These were also included, Admah and Zeboiim (De 29:23; Ho 11:8). Zoar, the other city, was spared. {In like manner} (\ton homoion tropon\). Adverbial accusative (cf. \ως\). Like the fallen angels. {Having given themselves over to fornication} (\ekinappropriate contenteusasai\). First aorist active participle feminine plural of \ekinappropriate contenteu“\, late and rare compound (perfective use of \ek\, [size=+1]*[/size]outside the moral law), only here in N.T., but in LXX (Ge 38:24; Ex 34:15f., etc.).​

*
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I always believed sexual immorality to include homosexuality, then again, I don't have a Greek or Hebrew bible on hand. (I should order one)

You must prove that.

However, in the NIV footnote, it says that they had the latest Hebrew and Greek sources available to them when they conjured up the NIV bible.

Different flesh is hetero. Same flesh is homo.

Since I believe the apostles believed in Adam and Eve and made many references to relationships between men and women, especially how several of these apostles were Jewish, I always believed that any different form of relationship outside the contexts of a marriage was viewed as immoral, or not pertaining to good morales.

Circular Reasoning. You did not provide proof that they did so believe that. You only said that you believe they said.

In O.T. Law, there are also rules against violating a women's virginity before she is married.
But this is my opinion.

You cannot equivocate homosexuality and violating a woman's virginity. They are apples and oranges.

Please note in my bible, NIV, that it also lists homosexuality to be a sin in the subject guide. This is the listings for homosexuality according to it:

Romans talks about temple prostitution...read the whole first chapter of Romans for context. The people left Christianity and embraced their old Pagan beliefs. And part of Pagan belief and practice back then was to sleep with the clergy of the temple. In addition, it was a common Pagan cultural custom for adult men to keep young boys for their "personal enjoyment."

1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy are suggesting the same thing.

Of course, none of these are a loving, cooperative, monogomous relationship. That is what is key.

Please note that under the title "SEX" in the subject index, 1 Corinthians 6:9-20 -p.1199 is listed as immorality (and includes the verses in Corinthians 6:9-11 listed under the title "homosexuality" in the subject index.

The NIV isn't a formal equivalence anyway. It is therefore inadmissable for study or evidence. Please come up with a translation (ie: non-paraphrase) that isn't a dynamic equivalence. Anyone can injunct their theology and ideas in a dynamic equivalency, but it is harder to do so in a formal equivalency.

So, from my reasoning, how the bible's central focus is on man-to-women relationships, the story of Adam and Eve, warnings against women (and not men) prostitution (although men prostitution is listed a few times from what I can remember. Correct me on this one if I am wrong), adultery between men and women, the belief that in marriage a man leaves his parents to become united to his wife and become one flesh, talk of divorce between a man and a women, many passages referring to Christ as the husband and the church as his bride, the book of Hosea where God's central focus is that his two brides (Israel and Judea) are unfaithful and committed spiritual adultery against Him, and the different advices given throughout the bible to husbands and wive relationships as well have me to reason that Paul is right in coining in Corinthians that men and women exchanged natural relationships, that is between a man and a women, for ones that were different including those that are same-gendered.

What did the prophets believe was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah however? Look up what, say, Isaiah thought?

I know some of you may argue because "A doesn't say this, therefore, B is not what A is" but if you use reasoning to gather what everyones view was at the time, and on the many rules and verses that talked about relationships, you don't need a verse telling what that "homosexuality"is a sin.

I have read what they wrote at the time. I've read the "proof texts" that the Church Fathers thought "homosexuality" to be a sin. They weren't talking about loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships. They were talking about temple prostitution and adult men keeping boys for "personal enjoyment."

Apostles believe in Adam and Eve, Apostles talk against having bad morales that violate what a godly relationship is involving sex, adultery chiefly refers to men and women not being faithful with one another in marriage, Christ refers to his church as his women(bride) and himself as her husband(groom), God personally refers to Israel and Judea as women who weren't faithful to him....and so on....
you can gather what was viewed as a normal relationship.

How about asexuals? They are basically celibates for life. In Jewish custom, they were impure and outcasts. They weren't normal either then, by your logic.

Are they then also condemned?

Top that off with the fact that God created man and and women different that "join" together like a puzzle piece, (do I need to say more?), and you have a conclusion on things.

Only due for the propagation of the species.

In nature, sex is instinctive and does not naturally occur, regardless of how many animals do it.

Sex doesn't naturally occur?! Are you serious?! The entire goal of many species is simply to ensure the next generation; that is their only reason for existence.

Sex is very natural. Otherwise, you sir wouldn't be sitting down reading this post.

I saw on discovery the other day that two males actually commited homosexual acts to help attract a female mate, but this does not mean that they are homosexual.

Ever heard of bisexuality? Its oft-forgotten yet very important to remember.

Fish are more delicate than animals as a result of how they mate and spawn. From what I recall, they need more precise conditions to mate. Male fish tend to deposit their sperm and then go away (correct me if I am wrong). I don't recall a male fish going up to another male fish and depositing it's sperm.

Point being?

In the animal kingdom, such as dogs, acts of homosexuality are a means to dominate other animals,

No, its about forming relationships.

and it appears this way as well in human nature too, which we will find when people go to jail. Men in jail will express their dominance over other jailers by raping other men. The phrase "don't drop the soap" comes from this fact.

That's rape, not a loving, cooperative, monogomous relationship. There is a difference, after all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,078
2,011
Visit site
✟24,764.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Neither the men of Sodom or Gomorrah had sex with Angels.

But they were so filled with deviate lust that they did not even know when Holy Angels were among them.

God had ALREADY DISPATCHED the Angels to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their burning fleshly deviate abominable lust BEFORE any men begged Lot to let them come in.
Abraham interceded for them, that God might not destroy them, but to no avail.

Lot offered his VIRGIN daughters to the men to try to keep them from attempting an unholy thing with the Angels. Fortunately for Lot's daughters it was unnecessary as the Angels blinded the homosexual men.

Reread the account in Genesis 18-19


Different flesh...not same flesh. The Greek uses heteros, not homos.

Humans are of the same flesh.

It is referring to angels. And since angels =/= humans, its an excellent proof against inappropriate behavior with animals.

Also, note Genesis 6:1.
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Neither the men of Sodom or Gomorrah had sex with Angels.

They wanted to, and that would be inappropriate behavior with animals, not homosexuality, especially since angels have no gender.

Furthermore, it would be rape, not a loving, cooperative, monogomous relationship.

But they were so filled with deviate lust that they did not even know when Holy Angels were among them.

That doesn't make them no less angels. That doesn't them male. The fact remains that they'd be raping agendered celestial beings, not having loving, cooperative, monogomous loving relationships with mortal human males.

Oh, and I might add that the story makes it clear that the women were involved too.

God had ALREADY DISPATCHED the Angels to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their burning fleshly deviate abominable lust BEFORE any men begged Lot to let them come in.

Your point?

Abraham interceded for them, that God might not destroy them, but to no avail.

It wouldn't have availed anyway. That part of the story is to establish that God is not unjust.

Lot offered his VIRGIN daughters to the men to try to keep them from attempting an unholy thing with the Angels.

A jesture of hospitality, albeit a very disgusting one.

Fortunately for Lot's daughters it was unnecessary as the Angels blinded the homosexual men.

Not homosexual. Not all men. The "men" were angels thus it'd be inappropriate behavior with animals, and not just men but women were gathered too.

Reread the account in Genesis 18-19

I have. I see attempted rape, attempted inappropriate behavior with animals, and a very gross sense of hospitality on the part of Lot. I don't see a loving, cooperative, monogomous relationship between two individuals of the same race and also of the same gender therein.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Nonetheless, the Angels appeared as men and the sinners who wanted to have sex with them were not aware they were Angels


So I suggest that in the minds of the men, they had homosexual lust, but if the Angels were genderless, although they appeared as men, (and from what I recall there were once two female angels, but if I am wrong about the female angels, then this is alright, no big deal), there is no indication that sex between Angels and Humans is inappropriate behavior with animals. Nonetheless, doesn't inappropriate behavior with animals in the bible specifically refer only to animals? I don't recall the bible referring inappropriate behavior with animals to Angels, for one thing, because Angels are not animals nor beasts.

Nonetheless, you will find that if you look up the word "inappropriate behavior with animals" you will find that it is defined as a sexual intercourse between people and animals.

God isn't genered either, is he? But nonetheless, we are created in His image. Similarly, I expect Angels, superior spiritually to mankind, to be created in the image of God. That would explain why Angels appear in the image of God in physical form.
Thefreedictionary.com
bes·ti·al·i·typlay_w("B0211600")
n. pl. bes·ti·al·i·ties
1. The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal.
2. Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality.
3. Sexual relations between a human and an animal.


Clearly, if you read this article from carm.org on Angel Sex, there is no indication that Humans having sex with Angels is inappropriate behavior with animals:
http://www.carm.org/questions/sex_angels.htm
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nonetheless, the Angels appeared as men and the sinners who wanted to have sex with them were not aware they were Angels

That's irrelevent. Just because snake tastes like chicken, doesn't mean it is chicken; it is snake.

Just because you mistake your car for another that is the exact same model, year, and color, doesn't mean it is your car; it is someone else's.

Just because the angels appeared as men doesn't mean they were men; they were angels.

And since angels don't have gender, you cannot even suggest that it was a combination of inappropriate behavior with animals and homosexuality. It can only be inappropriate behavior with animals.

So I suggest that in the minds of the men, they had homosexual lust,

Even if that were true (which it is not), what is the difference between "homosexual" lust and "heterosexual" lust?

I have a lust for a new computer. Is my lust for a Dell any different from my lust for a HP? How so?

Lust is lust. You cannot differentiate it. It may be towards different goals (computers, sex, television shows, etc), but it is the same extreme urge.

but if the Angels were genderless, although they appeared as men,

If I came to your house on Halloween night dressed like Sonic the Hedgehog, does that mean I'm now able to run over 600 mph, using my spines as weapons, and have an evil doctor with a robotosized arm as an enemy? Of course not. Even if you believed me to be, it doesn't change the fact that I am in reality a slow human being without any natural weapons and whose foe are greasy-faced and know-it-all high schoolers who make trouble in the classroom.

there is no indication that sex between Angels and Humans is inappropriate behavior with animals.

inappropriate behavior with animals is sex between two different species.

Nonetheless, doesn't inappropriate behavior with animals in the bible specifically refer only to animals? I don't recall the bible referring inappropriate behavior with animals to Angels, for one thing, because Angels are not animals nor beasts.

They are two different species. That is, in effect, inappropriate behavior with animals.

Nonetheless, you will find that if you look up the word "inappropriate behavior with animals" you will find that it is defined as a sexual intercourse between people and animals.

Or effectively two beings of different race. And before you accuse me of racism, let me make very clear that there is no such thing since "race" in terms of "black," "white," "yellow," "red," etc, is a human innovations which is dispelled by genetic fact. A human is a human is a human is a human.

And actually, angelic-human relations are in fact condemned in the Holy Canon. See Genesis 6.

God isn't genered either, is he? But nonetheless, we are created in His image.

Which means "in His Image" has nothing to do with gender but something else.

Similarly, I expect Angels, superior spiritually to mankind, to be created in the image of God.

Angels are not superior. They are our equals.

That would explain why Angels appear in the image of God in physical form.

Angels have no natural physical state. They are beings of pure etherealness. Though they can adapt a physical form when it suits them, it is not what they truly are.

Clearly, if you read this article from carm.org on Angel Sex, there is no indication that Humans having sex with Angels is inappropriate behavior with animals:
http://www.carm.org/questions/sex_angels.htm

CARM is a rabidly anti-Christian website which persecutes Apostolic Christians and has a decidedly Fundamentalist bias (and since Anglicans are Apostolic Christians, guess who also applies?). You'll have to look somewhere else to find a scholarly website that I'll accept.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Just because you mistake your car for another that is the exact same model, year, and color, doesn't mean it is your car; it is someone else's.

Just because the angels appeared as men doesn't mean they were men; they were angels.

Just because Jesus appears as a man doesn't mean he isn't God. For just like God can be a father, a Son, and a Spirit, I can be a brother, a son and a father at the same time. Although cars may appear in different shapes and sizes, colors, and have different people drive them, they are still manned by humans.

Just as Angels can appear as Spirits and as men, so can God.

inappropriate behavior with animals is defined as sexual intercourse with an animal. Do I really have to define what an animal is?

inappropriate behavior with animals does not apply to amphibians, for that would be called something else. And likewise, just as inappropriate behavior with animals isn't defined as having sex with reptiles, inappropriate behavior with animals doesn't apply to sex with Angels.

Although I support your theory for saying that having sex with Angels may not be homosexual, nonetheless, without a doubt the men who wanted to have sex with them had it in their minds that the Angels were men and lusted over them in that way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Just because the angels appeared as men doesn't mean they were men; they were angels.

And since angels don't have gender, you cannot even suggest that it was a combination of inappropriate behavior with animals and homosexuality. It can only be inappropriate behavior with animals.

Yes, Angels are not men and Angels may be genderless, but your not seeing the point I am making.

The point I am making is not that the Angels and men of Soddom had sex, but the fact that is what was in the hearts of the men who wanted to have sex with the Angels.

inappropriate behavior with animals is not defined as having sex with Angels, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and other such creatures. inappropriate behavior with animals is defined as having sexual intercourse with an animal.

Angels are not animals, they are a domain of their own, separate from animals, insects, amphibians, reptiles, and mankind.
 
Upvote 0

kagol

Active Member
May 17, 2007
68
5
✟15,226.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi :wave:

Sodom and Gomorrah were not initially to be punished because of their intent towards the angels.

Sodom and Gomorrah were to be destroyed because God had heard that their sin was very grievous;

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Genesis 18 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.[/FONT]
KJV

The punishment was for what God had knowledge of previous to the angels arrival.

So what was the 'very grevious sin'?


This is where the intent against the angels comes in to play.

I think we have to ask ourselves; Did the men of the town come with homosexual intent?

To me it is quite clear;

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

They asked for the 'men' so their intent was toward what they believed to be men. (the fact that they were angels and not men, I will address separately)

'know them' comes from the hebrew 'to know' in a carnal sense.

From this it is clear that they intended homosexual rape upon them. I don't see any other interpretation possible.

I think we all agree that rape is a sin.

OK. Do we agree so far?

If not then please answer this first so that I don't get confused with all the separate parts getting mixed in together.

thanks




</IMG>
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Even if that were true (which it is not), what is the difference between "homosexual" lust and "heterosexual" lust?

I was making a point. The Angels appeared in the form of men. The men did not know they were Angels. Therefore, if the men wanted to have sex with the Angels, and thought the Angels were men, the men had homosexual intentions within their hearts. There is no (if it were true) because that was what they were desiring. Lot offered them a virgin women and they refused. Evidence of this is expressed by their lips:

"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them" (Gen 19:4)

Furthermore, my NIV bible describes the Angels as men who cast blindness upon the sinners. (Gen 19:10)

So you see, Angels appeared in the form of men. They had the bodies of men. They were fully Angels, with bodies of men. Likewise, Jesus is God taking the form of a man. The Angels cannot be genderless in this case. And in this case, they had bodies of men, including gentiles.

You also forget that Lot offered to wash the Angels feet (Gen 19: 2) and that the Angels had a meal (Gen 19:3) and slept (Gen 19:4).

The Angels appeared fully as men, and the sinners wanted to commit homosexual acts with them.


I have a lust for a new computer. Is my lust for a Dell any different from my lust for a HP? How so?
lust is lust, but I am making a point here about Angels taking on the form of men: they could eat, sleep, have their feet washed, and they were so obvious as looking like men that the people of Soddom believed they were men. This is not inappropriate behavior with animals.

inappropriate behavior with animals is sex between two different species.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&s... animals&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/inappropriate behavior with animals#Religious_perspectives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/inappropriate behavior with animals

http://www.answers.com/topic/inappropriate behavior with animals

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=194478

I have provided you with christian sources of the definition in my previous posts and non-christian definitions in this post. In all the links I have given for how it is defined are respectable sources that will define it as sexual relations between Mankind and animalkind.

According to this website, Catholic.org, Angels are defined as spiritual messangers:
"
What are angels?
An angel is a pure spirit created by God. The Old Testament theology included the belief in angels: the name applied to certain spiritual beings or intelligences of heavenly residence, employed by God as the ministers of His will.
The English word "angel" comes from the Greek angelos, which means 'messenger'. In the Old Testament, with two exceptions, the Hebrew word for "angel" is malak, also meaning 'messenger'. The prophet Malachi took his name from this word. He was himself a messenger, and he prophesied about the coming of "the messenger of the covenant", Jesus Christ (Malachi 3:1).
Although the word "angel" in the Bible, meaning a messenger, nearly always applies to heavenly beings, it can occasionally apply to human messengers. Malachi himself said a priest was a messenger (malak) of the LORD of hosts (Malachi 2:7), and in the Book of Revelation the elders of the seven churches of Asia were called angels (1:20; 2:1 etc.). But when we meet messengers doing supernatural things, there is no doubt they are heavenly beings - God's messengers, working for Him and for the ultimate benefit of mankind."

Now, I don't know where you get your information from by calling Angelic and humanistic sex, inappropriate behavior with animals, because that is not what it is.

They are two different species. That is, in effect, inappropriate behavior with animals.

Are Spirits defined a species? Nonetheless, Angels are not animals, nor are they spiritual animals, therefore, Angelic sex with humans is not inappropriate behavior with animals.


The Spirit of God resided in the body of Jesus, who was God in the flesh, yet, he had a human form, though he was born of the virgin Mary.

There is no way you can convince me that Angels are beasts, animals, and change my definition, according to respectable christian, non-christian reliable sources of what inappropriate behavior with animals is: sexual intercourse between animals and humans. Angels are neither human nor animal, but spirits, in the form of men: forms that allowed them to eat, drink, sleep, and be washed. Likewise, in these forms, I expect they were fully capable to do other things that humans could.

- Rob
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Hi :wave:

Sodom and Gomorrah were not initially to be punished because of their intent towards the angels.

Sodom and Gomorrah were to be destroyed because God had heard that their sin was very grievous;

KJV

The punishment was for what God had knowledge of previous to the angels arrival.

So what was the 'very grevious sin'?


This is where the intent against the angels comes in to play.

I think we have to ask ourselves; Did the men of the town come with homosexual intent?

To me it is quite clear;



They asked for the 'men' so their intent was toward what they believed to be men. (the fact that they were angels and not men, I will address separately)

'know them' comes from the hebrew 'to know' in a carnal sense.

From this it is clear that they intended homosexual rape upon them. I don't see any other interpretation possible.

I think we all agree that rape is a sin.

OK. Do we agree so far?

If not then please answer this first so that I don't get confused with all the separate parts getting mixed in together.

thanks




</IMG>

I agree that Soddom and Gomorrah were being punished for many sins before the Angels arrived, not initially because of what happned with the Angels.

- Rob
God bless
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums