Both of your posts are not clear.Actually God’s rule should be in gvmnt aligning vertically and God’s love rule in the amongst the people. I was just being pc.
Jesus directly and clearly teaching on marriage and gender?This doesn't help.
“Have you not read that He who created themfrom the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE
Neither of which addresses marriage or gender.Galatians 3:28
Matthew 22:30
Jesus directly and clearly teaching on marriage and gender?
Well ok.
Where exactly is Jesus saying what you say He is saying?What Jesus is actually doing here is protecting those who cannot legally protect and/or support themselves when they are abandoned by their husbands. He's not making some grandiose statement concerning marriage or gender.
Neither of which addresses marriage or gender.
People marry here on Earth. Jesus taught what God’s ordered design for marriage was from the beginning. He did so within the context of divorce which God hates. He was correcting what was man-made with what God ordered at Creation.
So this is not a fuzzy case. Jesus gave us a clear teaching.
Where exactly is Jesus saying what you say He is saying?
Except that we really have no "earthly" idea as to what counts as a marriage in our time since our marriages do not in any way resemble any marriages found in scripture, and we still haven't clearly defined what makes a person "male" or "female" in the first place.
Usually when someone says that Jesus (or Paul) or "the bible" is clearly saying, teaching, etc., it really means they haven't asked enough questions and are just basing the argument on assumptions that haven't yet been broken down in any meaningful way.
And how did Jesus reply to the situation?Because Jesus lived in a culture where a husband could legally divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever (or even for no reason), and said wives would have no means of support unless some other man would take her (and then that would be considered as adultery) or she would likely be forced into some sort of prostitution. (And wives had NO legal rights to divorce their husbands for any reason, so it was completely one sided.) A man divorcing his wife is basically a death sentence on her or worse.
All you have to do is read what Jesus said. There was no ambiguity. There was no but. There was no question left hanging.
What you seem to be saying is that based on our complex 21st century society where everyone is right in their own mind, that we should filter the Words of Christ through our relativistic lens.
Again the only one in Holy Scriptures who did this was Satan.
Just because our current society is terribly confused does not mean it is right to filter Jesus and His Apostles through that lens thus adding ambiguity to something which is crystal clear and concrete.
First I made no assumptions. I “let” Jesus do the talking.
Jesus did respond in a meaningful way. He obliterated the human understanding and clearly stated God’s design from the Beginning.
As you use “meaningful way” it seems that we add ambiguity to include things not discussed in the text.
As you are using “meaningful way” one can fly a Swedenborgian 747 through.
None. What did the King of Kings forget?There are plenty of questions left hanging.
The Apostles did not teach this way.We all read scripture through a lens.
Satan added ambiguity and confusion.Nope, Satan intentionally misused scripture for his own particular purpose.
No that’s not how Jesus nor His apostles taught.It only seems crystal clear and concrete through the particular lens you have decided to use. It is perfectly within our right to question every assumption we've ever made concerning scripture and view it through multiple lenses.
Except for in the way you "let" Jesus do the talking, he apparently tells 100 different people 100 different things.
I explained it. Jesus taught what God designed for marriage.To what purpose?
Chopped up with a Ginsu knife. Yeah I get that and see it a lot. But again that is not how Jesus taught nor His apostles.The text could easily be compared to an onion.
It's helpful to know that the actual scripture does not refer to a vague, uncertain thing like our modern word 'gay' or even our modern word 'homosexual' in the literal text (in literal translations I've seen), but instead to a precise action, intercourse sodomy, only, and not other things which people like to add in today, against scripture (adding to scripture is prohibited in scripture). You you can learn this by reading the scripture carefully. Here's the ESV (an excellent and accurate) translation:
Leviticus 18 ESV
verse 22 is the one so many people don't realize the wording of, which isn't 'gay' or even 'homosexual' accurately, but instead intercourse sodomy alone, leaving all the other various gay interactions completely ok (unless we try to add to scripture new things not in it).
If anyone is unsure of the verb meaning (intercourse) in verse 22, then examine verse 23 to ascertain the accurate meaning of the verb.
Notice how this real scriptural wording isn't so comfortable for all traditional man/woman married couples, who have in reality some of them done this very thing themselves....
From this accuracy, we can see the Bible says nothing against gay marriage in Lev 22, the chapter on sexual sins.
.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 18:22, KJV)
"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, KJV)
"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, KJV)
God's law, the law of the Son of God exists from Genesis onward, never abolished; Jesus Christ abolished the law of Moses, nailing it to his cross. Christians are under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. Those of us who are Gentiles were NEVER under the law of Moses.
"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." (Lev 19:18, KJV)
The underlined is for New Covenant believers, NOT because it is in Leviticus; but it is quoted exactly, word for word for New Covenant believers 6 times.
Bible scholars have known for centuries that Lev. 18:22 is referring to cult prostitutes, the ritual prostitution of idolaters. The Hebrew chuqqah, which the KJV renders "ordinances" in 18:3; and to ebah, which the KJV renders "abomination" in 18:22 are both words used with religious ritual.
In the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series, Leviticus, by Professor R. K. Harrison, the commentary on v22 reads:
"The regulations of Leviticus condemn certain aberrations found among the Egyptians and Canaanites, who went far towards deifying sexual activity, and assigned the title 'holy ones' to cultic prostitutes. Sacro-homosexual practices and female prostitution within the context of the cultus was probably well established throughout the ancient Near East long before the Israelites occupied Canaan. Homosexuality of a non-religious variety is poorly documented in Mesopotamian texts..." page 191
On the last page of the commentary, page 252 he states: "For a person to think of himself or herself as a 'Christian homosexual' or a 'Christian lesbian' is a complete contradiction in terms..."
He is obviously NOT a liberal, gay-friendly professor, promoting homosexuality.
Well Sodom was really really bad at that too.Ellicott seems to have left out Ezekiel 16:49.
It is the most complete answer, yes, about the sin of Sodom. Sodom wasn't destroyed for having gay people of course, which is only a temperament.Ellicott seems to have left out Ezekiel 16:49.
We are to take the whole counsel of God into consideration. There's a reason the early church saw the sin of Sodom as sexual immorality. It's because the canonical book of Jude made it clear:As this is the direct word from God, then it's simply the absolute answer to why Sodom was destroyed, and any other answer that omits these reasons this is simply wrong we can all understand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?