LGBT- what scriptures do you have?

[NeedyFollower]

That wouldn't be related to theology, but rather history.



You want evidence of what, exactly?



That's what Romans refers to and Paul didn't right the Torah.

[quote[Paul was a Jew and he knew that the OT specifically prohibited sex between a man and another man, which the Jews understood by extension included sex between two women. Here is a quote from the Jewish Talmud written before the Christian era.

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 54a​

And Paul being a Pharisee knew this. When he wrote Romans one he was not referring to Roman orgies or temple prostitution alone but all sexual activity between men and men and women and women.

There most certainly was as I have shown.

The OT forbade a LOT of things. The OT has a long list of things Jews cannot do - and then the NT has a very short list of those things Christians cannot continue to do.[/QUOTE]
Jesus ministry was primarily and initially to the lost sheep of the house of Israel who very well knew the law ( of which inordinate sexual lust was forbidden. ) Jesus' ministry to the gentile through Paul , was to the gentiles who knew not the law . This is why Paul had to harp on these things regarding homosexuality ( and fornication between unmarried , adultery, etc. ) This is part of today's confusion. It goes against purpose , design , reason and natural pure love . It is all about the excitement of the forbidden which is from our and God's adversary.

 

[Outtaluck]

We must also keep in mind that the original language that the bible was writen in was Greek and they have vastly different sentence structure rules and multiple more words for one of ours. For example: The word Love, we would use the word love like this:

I love my mother.
I love my football team.
I love how that hat looks on me.
I love my wife.
I love my Best friend.
I love America.

In Greek it would be like this:

I pragma my mother.
I ludus my football team.
I philautia how that hat looks on me.
I eros my wife.
I philia my Best friend.
I Agape America.

The definition of Love is the same in English as the definitions of Agape, philia, eros, philautia, ludus, and pragma in Greek. Eros would be the sexual attraction, if we are talking about the same sex then yes it is unquestionably a sin. But if we are referring to, for example, how I philia (The Love of Deep Friendship) my best friend David, then no in fact we would be commanded to love each other in this way.

The word in Greek is metanoia. It has little to do with penance, the root of the word "repent" in English. Metanoia is granted in faith. It is not something we do, it is what God does in us.



That's very presumptuous of you.



My salvation is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's not based on biblical fundamentalism.

The ethics of how we should treat our gay neighbor is a lot more complicated than simply quoting some Scriptures to justify our disgust, contempt, and indifference.

I don't think its "OK" to keep on sinning, but that is what we are going to do in this life. We sin because we are sinners, not that we are sinners because we sin. That is the big difference between Reformed and Lutheran protestants on the one hand, and all other Christians on the other. We have a different anthropology. This is why, over and over, we Lutherans return to the sacrament of Absolution, to hear the words of Jesus himself, spoken on behalf of the pastor or priest, that our sins are forgiven. We take sin very seriously, but we don't pretend any of us is above being a sinner.

What is "a homosexual lifestyle"? That very concept seems presumptive and dismissive of the experiences of gay men and women. There are only two kinds of gay people from what I've seen, and what many have seen and experienced: those that own up to what they are, and those that live a lie.

Look, you want to try to "tackle this sin problem", to have something that justifies you as a "true Christian", and something that condemns those "fake" Christians that accept gay people as they are, but you don't get it. You've just potentially committed a grave sin right there. You are no better than us. You have a zeal for the Lord that blinds you, we have a love for our neighbor that blinds us. Yet loving God and our neighbor are fulfilling the commandments: Jesus says they are both important.

Define a Christian lifestyle. Define a military lifestyle. Define an American, Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian, Spanish, English, German lifestyle. Those are societal norms for that group. The lifestyle of Jews in Moses' time would not be acceptable today, and our lifestyles back then would have been punished with death. Homosexual lifestyles would in case mean living with the same sex in an eros love relationship.
I agree with Your Brother In Christ, the act is a sin. Jeremiah tells us God looks upon the heart, or our intentions. That turns it into a case-by-case basis for whether it's sin or not, lending to us not judging.

 

[JoeP222w]

Most men with men don't look so much like their partners that they would be considered mirror images of each other.

Also, in your second paragraph quoted above, it seems like you're saying that the incarnate Jesus in the Gospels defined "a union between 2 men or 2 women" as an abomination. I'm not aware of where he does that.

I am not referring to solely physical appearance.

In Leviticus 18 God defined homosexuality to be an abomination. Jesus is God. I did not say that Jesus said it specifically in the gospels, but He did say it in the Bible

 

[Your Brother In Christ]

The place I start from is very simple, that I am convinced there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. This is the message that all people need to hear. Furthermore, it is the message that changes lives, that inspired men like St. Paul to go to the ends of the earth, and even their own deaths, proclaiming it. Not that God loves them and forgives them only if they are good, proper, and obedient Christians. The metanoia we have comes from believing that Jesus Christ has overcome sin, death, and the Devil, and that through faith and the holy and life-giving mysteries of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, we are made one with him, like a marriage. He gives us everything that is his to share everything lowly and shameful in us.

Real metanoia does not come from guilt, shame, doubt, or fear. Nobody has been shamed into the Kingdom or guilted into the Kingdom. The Kingdom ought to be preached and received as genuine Good News that frees us. Metanoia comes from gratitude for God having saved us, forgiving our sins and granting us eternal life, without any works on our part, without any merit or deservedness.

There are two problems with this statement:

1. The definition of Sin is separation from God, so your first sentence is false.
2. The holy spirit convicts us of our sin. I know, I have been convicted and felt guilty and then repented of that sin.

Are you saying that the Holy spirit is wrong?

Sin:

 

[FireDragon76]

It's debatable if Leviticus 18 is talking about homosexuality just based on the merits of the text alone, and in the sense being discussed in today's culture. The Hebrew literally says, " a man shall not lie with a man in a woman's bed".

It's noteworthy that Conservative Jews in the US no longer consider homosexual relationships necessarily sinful. They used similar exegesis to what I have been talking about in the above passage, that there is a great deal of ambiguity when applying biblical language and norms to modern culture.

 

[Bruce Carr]

Most men with men don't look so much like their partners that they would be considered mirror images of each other.

Also, in your second paragraph quoted above, it seems like you're saying that the incarnate Jesus in the Gospels defined "a union between 2 men or 2 women" as an abomination. I'm not aware of where he does that.

Jesus the Christ is God; and all things 'said by God' have been said by Jesus. What is the point of trying to obfuscate truth to defend a flawed scriptural interpretation ??

 

[Your Brother In Christ]

It's debatable if Leviticus 18 is talking about homosexuality just based on the merits of the text alone, and in the sense being discussed in today's culture. The Hebrew literally says, " a man shall not lie with a man in a woman's bed".

It's noteworthy that Conservative Jews in the US no longer consider homosexual relationships necessarily sinful. They used similar exegesis to what I have been talking about in the above passage, that there is a great deal of ambiguity when applying biblical language and norms to modern culture.

That works if you hide all the other verses about Homosexuality, like:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

[BukiRob]

Some take Galatians 3:28 that way.

The only way one can take it the way you suggest is to pervert, distort and completely take out of context what Paul is saying

 

[FireDragon76]

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

You do understand that I do not believe that translations of the Bible are inerrant, it is possible to have translation errors?

The Greek term here is aresonkoitai, which has an ambiguous meaning. It refers to some kind of immoral sex act, for sure, but it's not necessarily gay sex in the modern sense being discussed in culture.

 

[sdowney717]

It's debatable if Leviticus 18 is talking about homosexuality just based on the merits of the text alone, and in the sense being discussed in today's culture. The Hebrew literally says, " a man shall not lie with a man in a woman's bed".

It's noteworthy that Conservative Jews in the US no longer consider homosexual relationships necessarily sinful. They used similar exegesis to what I have been talking about in the above passage, that there is a great deal of ambiguity when applying biblical language and norms to modern culture.

Who cares what modern jews say, they are not Christians so do not have the True Light within them.
I would expect that response to come from someone of the world.

 

[NursingNinja]

One last thing I will add, there is no serious debate in Christianity on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It has always been condemned as such by scripture and the Church. What we are witnessing though is a great apostasy, if not THE great apostasy. As mass rejection of scripture is just a sad symptom of this that we all have to be witness to.

If you don't agree with me, just watch it happen. If one applies the same interpretive methodology to the Trinity, Deity of Christ, and the Gospel that they do with Matthew Vines homosexuality approach they will lose the tenets of the faith altogether and become a pagan creed.

Having studied those core doctrines of the Christian faith myself, and understanding the approach to scripture one must take to actually be a Trinitarian, I can never accept this ear scratching false teaching of Homosexual marriage in the Bible. To do so and apply it consistently I would have to become anti trinitarian, which is what I think most theological liberals are merely a generation away from doing en masse.

 

[BukiRob]

Well, if according to Jesus, just looking at another person of the opposite sex with lust in your heart is adultery (no touching), then it's reasonable to assume it's the same for same-sex when it comes to the sin of homosexuality. By the time there is physical intimacy, that line has been crossed a few times.

Oy..... 99% read that scripture and dont even know what Yeshua was actually saying.

The key is the word ADULTRY.

A single man and a single woman engaging in sexual intercourse CAN NOT, ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE committing Adultery. That act is fornication.

Adultery can only occur where one or both people are MARRIED.

At the time of Messiah's ministry Single women DID NOT just run around. In fact about the only time you would see an unmarried woman would be when they went to the nearest well to get water. We see this as evidenced by where Abraham's servant went to look for a suitable match for Issac. The servant went to the WELL....

 

[NursingNinja]

You do understand that I do not believe that translations of the Bible are inerrant, it is possible to have translation errors?

The Greek term here is aresonkoitai, which has an ambiguous meaning. It refers to some kind of immoral sex act, for sure, but it's not necessarily gay sex in the modern sense being discussed in culture.

Actually the first time we ever see the word being used is by Paul, its unmistakable that he was quoting Leviticus.

In the Septuagint version of Leviticus 18:22 we see that the words “arseno” and “koitai” and “arseno”.

Arseno: Man

Koitai: Laying (sexually) with

Arseno: Man

I don’t think there is any coincidence that the neologism Paul constructs here is from three words in Leviticus that lay-side-by-side. In doing so Paul is condemning as sin the very same act that is condemned in Leviticus. So logically, the word arsenokoitai is actually defined by Leviticus 18:22.

 

[sdowney717]

You do understand that I do not believe that translations of the Bible are inerrant, it is possible to have translation errors?

The Greek term here is aresonkoitai, which has an ambiguous meaning. It refers to some kind of immoral sex act, for sure, but it's not necessarily gay sex in the modern sense being discussed in culture.

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

That same word is also here in 1 Timothy 1:10, translated as sodomy, which is a male homosexual act.
Lawless insubordinate ungodly unholy profane sinners are those who will be going to hell.

8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

 

[FireDragon76]

If you don't agree with me, just watch it happen. If one applies the same interpretive methodology to the Trinity, Deity of Christ, and the Gospel that they do with Matthew Vines homosexuality approach they will lose the tenets of the faith altogether and become a pagan creed.

Matthew Vines is not a theological liberal, neither is David Gushee or others that have recently changed their minds on this issue. You are just making a slippery slope argument that is invalid.

Furthermore, it's foolish to pit religious certainties against flesh and blood human beings. If we risk heresy, I can't think of much better reasons to do so than for the sake of our neighbor's wellbeing. It's not like we are debating the merits of Arianism here.

Having studied those core doctrines of the Christian faith myself, and understanding the approach to scripture one must take to actually be a Trinitarian, I can never accept this ear scratching false teaching of Homosexual marriage in the Bible. To do so and apply it consistently I would have to become anti trinitarian, which is what I think most theological liberals are merely a generation away from doing en masse.

Umm... you are a Lutheran, stop being so rationalistic and accept the ambiguities of trying to be faithful in a world in which we only see through a glass darkly.

 

[Your Brother In Christ]

You do understand that I do not believe that translations of the Bible are inerrant, it is possible to have translation errors?

The Greek term here is aresonkoitai, which has an ambiguous meaning. It refers to some kind of immoral sex act, for sure, but it's not necessarily gay sex in the modern sense being discussed in culture.

Yes, but you can't chop up all the other verses I have stated to translation errors. It is plain for anyone to see, if you want to justify your position you have to jump through a lot of hoops, dismiss a lot of the Bible, and hope no one can read to fact check you.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually the first time we ever see the word being used is by Paul, its unmistakable that he was quoting Leviticus.

In the Septuagint version of Leviticus 18:22 we see that the words “arseno” and “koitai” and “arseno”.

Arseno: Man

Koitai: Laying (sexually) with

Arseno: Man

I don’t think there is any coincidence that the neologism Paul constructs here is from three words in Leviticus that lay-side-by-side. In doing so Paul is condemning as sin the very same act that is condemned in Leviticus. So logically, the word arsenokoitai is actually defined by Leviticus 18:22.

Yes, but it's in no way clear to all people that the Hebrew text is talking about gay sex between two consenting, committed adults. That's why I brought up the Conservative Jewish perspective.

 

[brightlights]

I am looking for scriptures that specifically say that a woman or a man cannot love a person of the same gender. Not ones stating that a man CAN love a woman or related messages. I want ones saying they can or cannot love the same sex. Thanks!

You've deliberately posed your question in a way that's difficult to answer. For example, the 20th century concept of "gender", if it is not synonymous with biological sex, is not a biblical concept. Likewise, nowhere is Scripture is love forbidden. But I suppose that by "love a person" you are referring to having sex with that person.

I can show you in Scripture where homosexual activity (men having sex with men or women having sex with women) is forbidden. Are you interested in that?

I can also show you where marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman which would appear to preclude same-sex marriage. Are you interested in that?

 

[SeventyOne]

Oy..... 99% read that scripture and dont even know what Yeshua was actually saying.

The key is the word ADULTRY.

A single man and a single woman engaging in sexual intercourse CAN NOT, ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE committing Adultery. That act is fornication.

Adultery can only occur where one or both people are MARRIED.

At the time of Messiah's ministry Single women DID NOT just run around. In fact about the only time you would see an unmarried woman would be when they went to the nearest well to get water. We see this as evidenced by where Abraham's servant went to look for a suitable match for Issac. The servant went to the WELL....

Kind of straining at gnats, aren't you?

Actually, the point is the sin occurs within the person before it ever manifests itself. Adultery was just one example He gave. He also mentioned murder, and in that context said it was not only the act of murder that makes one liable for the sin but also just anger against that person makes them liable.

Pick any sin, and it's already a sin internally before it manifests externally.

 

[Your Brother In Christ]

Matthew Vines is not a theological liberal, neither is David Gushee or others that have recently changed their minds on this issue. You are just making a slippery slope argument that is invalid.

Furthermore, it's foolish to pit religious certainties against flesh and blood human beings. If we risk heresy, I can't think of much better reasons to do so than for the sake of our neighbor's wellbeing. It's not like we are debating the merits of Arianism here.



Umm... you are a Lutheran, stop being so rationalistic and accept the ambiguities of trying to be faithful in a world in which we only see through a glass darkly.

In other words, @NursingNinja, FireDragon76 is saying to Shut up and sit down I know better then you and we should kick logic out the window. He does not want us fact checking him.