What - Precisely - Are Christians Attempting To Save Homosexuals From ...?

[Maren]

No, the fact is that just because we stand with the bible believing that homosexuality is a sin, doesn't mean we don't consider anything else a sin.

Did you miss this part of my post?

Sorry, that is a straw man you are knocking down and has no relevance to what I said. Nowhere did I claim that you don't consider anything else a sin. I just was mentioning the hypocrisy of using Leviticus to condemn homosexuality.

So do you know why they weren't to wear mix fabrics? What about not wearing clothing of mixed threads, specifically wool and linen? Yet the priestly garment was made with mixed wool and linen. It is taught that we’re not to mix ours in order to make the priestly garments more holy and unique. But what difference does that make today? Do you think there’s something to this not mixing stuff? It seems that HaShem doesn’t like us to mix things and He gives us specific things we’re not to mix but we’re not told specifically why. Could it be that there’s something to be learned here and maybe it’s to be learned by obeying it first and the understanding comes later? Well, let’s follow this idea for a few minutes.

I think the point is as much about not mixing things than it is about keeping certain items separate from others. One major point is that we are to keep things pure. We are to distinguish between what is holy and what is common, what is righteous and what is unrighteous and we are not to mix the two. (can you think of a particular passage in 2 Corinthians 6 that talks about unequally yoking things together - light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness, believer and unbeliever? I would venture a guess that Shaul had holiness in mind when he wrote to the believers in Corinth.)

So things to think about when speaking of cutting hair below:

The Orthodox Jews interpret this mitzvah (commandment) to avoid cutting the beard at face value. It is normal for Orthodox males to have long, untrimmed beards and long hair at the sides of their heads. To their credit, the Orthodox are zealous to obey the Torah. They do not allow current cultural or popular trends to influence the way they live. This has the effect of "setting them apart" from all others. The long beards are a tell-tale sign of an individual who is striving
http://www.bibletruth.cc/Body_4Dead.htm#Scriptural_Requirements_for_Cutting_the_Hair_and_Beard

At this point it might be asked, Does the New Testament not make clear that Christians are free from all such restrictions? Does Paul not say, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come" (Colossians 2:16,17)? Of course he does - and he speaks in a similar vein in other places also - but the question is, what does he mean in such passages by days and, in particular, by Sabbath days?
We must remember that a change took place in the worship of the Church of God after the resurrection of Christ. One aspect of that change was the substitution of the first day of the week for the seventh day as the day to be kept holy to God. But how were believers to treat the seventh day of the week after God instituted the Christian Sabbath - or the Lord's Day, as John calls it in Revelation 1:10, echoing the expression My holy day in Isaiah 58:13? The answer was that first-generation Christians were free to keep holy the seventh day of the week in addition to the first day, but no one had any right to judge those who did not keep the seventh day as well as the first day. God had changed the particular day of the week which was to be kept holy, but the Sabbath institution remained absolutely unchanged. The principle remained the same: that "a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so . . . He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him" (Westminster Confession of Faith 21:7).
There can be no doubt that the first day of the week was the day set apart in the early New Testament Church for the worship of God. It was "upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread" in Troas, "and Paul preached unto them" (Acts 20:7). It was on the first day of the week also that the collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem was to be taken in the Corinthian Church. (See 1 Corinthians 16:1,2). The change of day took place in order that the Christian Sabbath might be a memorial of the resurrection, which, of course, took place on the first day of the week. So it need be no surprise to find the Saviour on the evening of the Resurrection Day appearing where the disciples were meeting together, and coming to them again eight days later (that is, exactly one week later, for the Jews counted both the first and the last days of any period as full days). Christ honoured their gatherings with His physical presence just as He has honoured many other such Sabbath gatherings since then with His spiritual presence. And how wonderfully He honoured the preaching of the gospel on the Day of Pentecost (which was always the first day of the week) when 3000 souls were brought into His kingdom!

http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Beliefs/One_Day_in_Seven.php

Yet nowhere in here does it say we should follow any of the Law, much less part of the law.

 

[Maren]

Mark 2:1-5
1 And again He entered Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that He was in the house.
2 Immediately many gathered together, so that there was no longer room to receive them, not even near the door. And He preached the word to them.
3 Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men.
4 And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.”

Not so sure we can go with the He only healed those who believed can we? At least not if we look at Mark 2, where we see it was the friends faith.

Does Christ forgive the sins of those who do not believe in Him or do we need to believe in Him to be forgiven? I think this again indicates that Christ healed those that believe in Him.

 

[OllieFranz]

Mark 2:1-5
1 And again He entered Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that He was in the house.
2 Immediately many gathered together, so that there was no longer room to receive them, not even near the door. And He preached the word to them.
3 Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men.
4 And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.”

Not so sure we can go with the He only healed those who believed can we? At least not if we look at Mark 2, where we see it was the friends faith.

"Their faith" included that of the paralytic. Or do you suppose that his friends dragged him there against his will?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Marren,

Sorry, that is a straw man you are knocking down and has no relevance to what I said. Nowhere did I claim that you don't consider anything else a sin. I just was mentioning the hypocrisy of using Leviticus to condemn homosexuality.

In reality we aren’t, you are using Leviticus try and justify homosexuality. Whilst the law is written on our hearts to understand sin, we are not under the obligation of the law, so to keep referring to hypocracy of using Leviticus indicates you feel more obligated to it.

Much of the pro-homosexual debate seems to consist of accusation which is actually false and actually being done by the accusers. Leviticus 18 & 20 condemn homosexual practice, along with Genesis 19 which condemns and Genesis 2 which excludes it.

What are you using to support homosexual practice?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Olliefranz,

And I ask you the same question I asked BrightMorningStar: Where is the Biblical justification for saying that we are free from only part of the Law?

We aren’t saying that there is, you are.

Where is the passage which tells us that while the dietary laws are no longer binding, others still are?

Here….
First of all, if laws against homosexuality were merely ceremonial (and therefore abolished), then rape, incest and bestiality would not be morally wrong either, since they are condemned in the same chapter with homosexual sins. (Lev. 18:6-14, 22-23).

Second, homosexual sins among Gentiles were also condemned by God. (Rom. 1:26), and they did not have the ceremonial laws (Rom. 2:12-15). It was for this very reason that God brought judgment on the Canaanites (Gen. 18:1-3, 25).

Third, even in the Jewish levitical law there was a difference in punishment for violating the ceremonial law of eating pork or shrimp (which was a few days isolation) and that for homosexuality which was capital punishment (Lev. 18:29).

Fourth, Jesus changed the dietary laws of the OT (Mark 7:18; Acts 10:15), but the moral prohibitions against homosexuality are still enjoined on believers in the NT (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7).

You claim that the distinction is one of moral vs ceremonial. But nowhere in the Bible is this distinction made.

Yes it is, here…
First of all, if laws against homosexuality were merely ceremonial (and therefore abolished), then rape, incest and bestiality would not be morally wrong either, since they are condemned in the same chapter with homosexual sins. (Lev. 18:6-14, 22-23).

Second, homosexual sins among Gentiles were also condemned by God. (Rom. 1:26), and they did not have the ceremonial laws (Rom. 2:12-15). It was for this very reason that God brought judgment on the Canaanites (Gen. 18:1-3, 25).

Third, even in the Jewish levitical law there was a difference in punishment for violating the ceremonial law of eating pork or shrimp (which was a few days isolation) and that for homosexuality which was capital punishment (Lev. 18:29).

Fourth, Jesus changed the dietary laws of the OT (Mark 7:18; Acts 10:15), but the moral prohibitions against homosexuality are still enjoined on believers in the NT (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7).

But even assuming that the distinction is valid, how do you determine which is which? On which side would you place the following laws (keeping in mind that whichever side you select for many of these there are good God-fearing Christians -- conservative Christians -- who will tell you that you are wrong):

see post #100.

As savedandhappy1 and I, and others, agree totally with what we are saying, you clearly don’t accept it. So you now answer the questions put to you. Take your point about all or part of the law, we don’t pick and choose, so do you? Do you keep or dismiss all the incest, homosexual and bestiality in Leviticus 18?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Olliefranz,

And I ask you the same question I asked BrightMorningStar: Where is the Biblical justification for saying that we are free from only part of the Law?

We aren’t saying that there is, you are.

Where is the passage which tells us that while the dietary laws are no longer binding, others still are?

Here….
First of all, if laws against homosexuality were merely ceremonial (and therefore abolished), then rape, incest and bestiality would not be morally wrong either, since they are condemned in the same chapter with homosexual sins. (Lev. 18:6-14, 22-23).

Second, homosexual sins among Gentiles were also condemned by God. (Rom. 1:26), and they did not have the ceremonial laws (Rom. 2:12-15). It was for this very reason that God brought judgment on the Canaanites (Gen. 18:1-3, 25).

Third, even in the Jewish levitical law there was a difference in punishment for violating the ceremonial law of eating pork or shrimp (which was a few days isolation) and that for homosexuality which was capital punishment (Lev. 18:29).

Fourth, Jesus changed the dietary laws of the OT (Mark 7:18; Acts 10:15), but the moral prohibitions against homosexuality are still enjoined on believers in the NT (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7).

You claim that the distinction is one of moral vs ceremonial. But nowhere in the Bible is this distinction made.

Yes it is, here…
First of all, if laws against homosexuality were merely ceremonial (and therefore abolished), then rape, incest and bestiality would not be morally wrong either, since they are condemned in the same chapter with homosexual sins. (Lev. 18:6-14, 22-23).

Second, homosexual sins among Gentiles were also condemned by God. (Rom. 1:26), and they did not have the ceremonial laws (Rom. 2:12-15). It was for this very reason that God brought judgment on the Canaanites (Gen. 18:1-3, 25).

Third, even in the Jewish levitical law there was a difference in punishment for violating the ceremonial law of eating pork or shrimp (which was a few days isolation) and that for homosexuality which was capital punishment (Lev. 18:29).

Fourth, Jesus changed the dietary laws of the OT (Mark 7:18; Acts 10:15), but the moral prohibitions against homosexuality are still enjoined on believers in the NT (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7).

But even assuming that the distinction is valid, how do you determine which is which? On which side would you place the following laws (keeping in mind that whichever side you select for many of these there are good God-fearing Christians -- conservative Christians -- who will tell you that you are wrong):

see post #100.

As savedandhappy1 and I, and others, agree totally with what we are saying, you clearly don’t accept it. So you now answer the questions put to you. Take your point about all or part of the law, we don’t pick and choose, so do you? Do you keep or dismiss all the incest, homosexual and bestiality in Leviticus 18?

 

[Maren]

To Marren,

In reality we aren’t, you are using Leviticus try and justify homosexuality. Whilst the law is written on our hearts to understand sin, we are not under the obligation of the law, so to keep referring to hypocracy of using Leviticus indicates you feel more obligated to it.

All I've done is looked at those Leviticus verses in their original Hebrew and looked at what the verses actually say. Your second sentence just doesn't even make sense. That I find you acting hypocritically is merely because you are calling people sinners using verses from a Law that you do not follow and admit you are not obligation to.

Much of the pro-homosexual debate seems to consist of accusation which is actually false and actually being done by the accusers.

To can play this game; to paraphrase: Much of the anti-homosexual debate seems to consist of accusation which is actually false and actually being done by the accusers. After all, I've asked you at least twice to quit accusing me of false motivations. It is even more ironic you'd claim this in a post that you accuse, "so to keep referring to hypocracy of using Leviticus indicates you feel more obligated to it."

Leviticus 18 & 20 condemn homosexual practice, along with Genesis 19 which condemns and Genesis 2 which excludes it.

Wait a minute, I thought people weren't condemned for homosexuality, that it was just a sin? After all your previous posts where you falsely accused me of saying that people were condemned for homosexual acts and here you are saying that people are?

And Genesis 19 does not condemn homosexual acts, at least not according to the Bible (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Genesis 2 says nothing about homosexuals unless you add to the verses.

What are you using to support homosexual practice?

So anything not supported in the Bible is forbidden?

To Olliefranz,

We aren’t saying that there is, you are.

Where is the passage which tells us that while the dietary laws are no longer binding, others still are?

Here….
First of all, if laws against homosexuality were merely ceremonial (and therefore abolished), then rape, incest and bestiality would not be morally wrong either, since they are condemned in the same chapter with homosexual sins. (Lev. 18:6-14, 22-23).

Second, homosexual sins among Gentiles were also condemned by God. (Rom. 1:26), and they did not have the ceremonial laws (Rom. 2:12-15). It was for this very reason that God brought judgment on the Canaanites (Gen. 18:1-3, 25).

Third, even in the Jewish levitical law there was a difference in punishment for violating the ceremonial law of eating pork or shrimp (which was a few days isolation) and that for homosexuality which was capital punishment (Lev. 18:29).

Fourth, Jesus changed the dietary laws of the OT (Mark 7:18; Acts 10:15), but the moral prohibitions against homosexuality are still enjoined on believers in the NT (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7).


Yes it is, here…
First of all, if laws against homosexuality were merely ceremonial (and therefore abolished), then rape, incest and bestiality would not be morally wrong either, since they are condemned in the same chapter with homosexual sins. (Lev. 18:6-14, 22-23).

Second, homosexual sins among Gentiles were also condemned by God. (Rom. 1:26), and they did not have the ceremonial laws (Rom. 2:12-15). It was for this very reason that God brought judgment on the Canaanites (Gen. 18:1-3, 25).

Third, even in the Jewish levitical law there was a difference in punishment for violating the ceremonial law of eating pork or shrimp (which was a few days isolation) and that for homosexuality which was capital punishment (Lev. 18:29).

Fourth, Jesus changed the dietary laws of the OT (Mark 7:18; Acts 10:15), but the moral prohibitions against homosexuality are still enjoined on believers in the NT (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7).



see post #100.

As savedandhappy1 and I, and others, agree totally with what we are saying, you clearly don’t accept it. So you now answer the questions put to you. Take your point about all or part of the law, we don’t pick and choose, so do you? Do you keep or dismiss all the incest, homosexual and bestiality in Leviticus 18?

And nowhere do you answer the question. You show the reasons you believe homosexuality is not a ceremonial sin, though you never show where the Bible says it is. But worse for you, you never show where the Bible says that only the Ceremonial portion of the Law was done away with and the rest is still in force.

And it is odd with the number of times you have said things like, "You would know I don’t because I have already demonstrated that Christians are not subject to the law." In a later post, when I asked a question to clarify about the your believe of Christians and the Law you stated, "Because Jesus Christ’s NT teaching says we aren’t. What gave you the idea we were?" This is why you seem so hypocritical: you've claimed more than once that Christians are not held to the Law, yet now you are arguing it is only part of the law that Christians are held to. And this is why you appear to be hypocritical.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

All I've done is look at those Leviticus verses in their original Hebrew and looked at what the verses actually say. The Bible says neither adulterers, homosexual offenders thieves etc shall enter the Kingdom. I have not called anyone specifically a sinner, all that has happened is people have reacted against the Biblical passages presumably when they realise they do what the Bible says don’t do. All Christians will know they fall short and I don’t see any Christians complaining about the passages that I ma calling them sinners because adultery, greed theft etc.

Wait a minute, I thought people weren't condemned for homosexuality, that it was just a sin?

Wait a minute I thought you knew the difference between homosexuality which is same sex attraction and homosexual practice, or didn’t you read the comment properly and note it said homosexual practice not homosexuality as you replied?
In Christ there is no condemnation, but Christ makes it clear one is not in Christ if one is wilfully disobeying.

And Genesis 19 does not condemn homosexual acts, at least not according to the Bible (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Genesis 2 says nothing about homosexuals unless you add to the verses.

Genesis 19 condemns homosexual acts as it says the men wanted sex with the men which Lot said was wicked. Ezekiel just describes other sins of Sodom. Funny that you have such trouble with the Hebrew of Genesis 19 but are apparently blissfully happy with Ezekiel.

So anything not supported in the Bible is forbidden?

What are you using to support homosexual practice?

And nowhere do you answer the question.

Well savedandhappy1 has answered it, and spot on, that’s our answer. If we agree 100% on the answer and you cant see it, it still doesn’t change the fact we have given our answer whether you accept it or not.
So now once again you give your answer ..Do you keep or dismiss all the incest, homosexual and bestiality in Leviticus 18?

 

[Maren]

To Maren,

The Bible says neither adulterers, homosexual offenders thieves etc shall enter the Kingdom. I have not called anyone specifically a sinner, all that has happened is people have reacted against the Biblical passages presumably when they realise they do what the Bible says don’t do.

Funny, I thought this was the "Debates on Homosexuality" section. I didn't realize one had to actually be a homosexual and somehow be offended by what the Bible actually says to debate here. I'd appreciate if you could find that in the rules here. Until then, I'd appreciate if you'd quit applying false motivations -- and I wish you would have listened the first time I asked.

All Christians will know they fall short and I don’t see any Christians complaining about the passages that I ma calling them sinners because adultery, greed theft etc.

All the quotes I know from the Bible about adultery, greed, and theft are quite clear. I do see Christians all the time trying to argue the condemnations of fornication, divorce, slander, lying, gluttony, covetousness, etc. or at least trying to pretend they aren't sins.

Wait a minute I thought you knew the difference between homosexuality which is same sex attraction and homosexual practice, or didn’t you read the comment properly and note it said homosexual practice not homosexuality as you replied?

And I thought you believed homosexuals that aren't having homosexual sex aren't actually homosexuals. Then again, I seem to recall explaining that in these types of debates I tend to just say homosexuality and not bother with homosexual acts since most Christians do see the two as the same.

Interesting, though, that instead of actually answering what was said you merely attacked my word choice. Instead, you actually again claim that in Christ there is no condemnation. It is you that seems to have ulterior motives shining through.

In Christ there is no condemnation, but Christ makes it clear one is not in Christ if one is wilfully disobeying.

So are you saying that all Christians that are in homosexual relationships are "willfully disobeying"? And if so, wouldn't you have to agree that to repeatedly make false claims against someone in a debate forum, especially after having been asked to stop, would also be "willfully disobeying"?

Genesis 19 condemns homosexual acts as it says the men wanted sex with the men which Lot said was wicked.

No, it says the men wanted to rape angels; are you going to claim that rape is the same as consensual sex? So if you want to rape your wife that would be just fine per the Bible? And, if they truly just wanted homosexual sex, why would they not just have sex with each other? Why would Lot have offered his daughters? You might also want to compare the story in Judges 19, where Israelites want to rape a visiting Levite -- strangely that is never used as a condemnation of homosexual acts despite being very close to the same story.

It is strange that nowhere in the Bible is the attempted rape in Sodom connected with homosexuality. The closest would be Jude when it talks of "strange flesh", but a look at the original Greek shows that homosexuality isn't what meant. Even more interestingly, the Greek word translated as "strange" is actually "heteros".

Ezekiel just describes other sins of Sodom. Funny that you have such trouble with the Hebrew of Genesis 19 but are apparently blissfully happy with Ezekiel.

The verses in Ezekiel start out, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom...", but this is God just describing some of the sins? I don't think I'm the one having trouble understanding the Bible.

What are you using to support homosexual practice?

Again, are you stating that anything not specifically supported in the Bible is a sin?

Well savedandhappy1 has answered it, and spot on, that’s our answer. If we agree 100% on the answer and you cant see it, it still doesn’t change the fact we have given our answer whether you accept it or not.
So now once again you give your answer ..Do you keep or dismiss all the incest, homosexual and bestiality in Leviticus 18?

And OllieFranz and I both agree on our answers and that you still haven't answered our questions, but then it's a logical fallacy to claim that just because you are the majority that you are right. The Pharisees also thought they had the truth. They were simply following the traditional beliefs that most Jews believed were what the scriptures said. As for Leviticus 18, since the law is fulfilled and does not need to be followed by Christians, none of it applies.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Sorry, that is a straw man you are knocking down and has no relevance to what I said. Nowhere did I claim that you don't consider anything else a sin. I just was mentioning the hypocrisy of using Leviticus to condemn homosexuality.

Nope, no strawman because I am using the OT and the NT to state my case. The Bible has to be taken as a whole not cherry picking verses out, so no hypocrisy here.

My preacher preached a wonderful sermon Sunday about Plotting the Couse-Reaching Out: Uncontained Faith. In it he mentioned how many Christians in other countries are killed for witnessing and spreading the Gospel, but us in the USA stopping witnessing and spreading the Gospel if we are called names or if we are afraid people won't think well of us. (If it wasn't so long I would post it.) So trying to use the hypocrisy, hater, bigot, etc. cards won't really work with me, but if it makes you fill better you can keep trying them.

Another point he made is how we should remember we are to serve God, and do things that are pleasing to Him. We are to speak the truth in love, and then let Him handle what happens with His Word. So that is what I will continue to do, to the best of my ability. The 4 points that were covered in the sermon was availibilty, sensitivity, activity, and durability. This sermon was taken from Acts 17:16-21, and he also mention that reading 1 and 2 Thes. would be also helpful.

Yet nowhere in here does it say we should follow any of the Law, much less part of the law.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Deuteronomy 6:5-7).

"You shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul" (Deuteronomy 11:18).

"For this commandment which I command you today, it is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it" (Deuteronomy 30:11-14).

"The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom, And his tongue talks of justice. The law of his God is in his heart" (Psalm 37:30,31). "Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You" (Psalm 119:11).

"Let not mercy and truth forsake you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart, and so find favor and high esteem in the sight of God and man. Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths" (Proverbs 3:3-6). "My son, give attention to my words; incline your ear to my sayings. Do not let them depart from your eyes; keep them in the midst of your heart; For they are life to those who find them, and health to all their flesh. Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life" (Proverbs 4:20-23). "My son, keep my words, and treasure my commands within you. Keep my commands and live, and my law as the apple of your eye. Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart" (Proverbs 7:1-3).

"Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, you people in whose heart is My law: do not fear the reproach of men, nor be afraid of their revilings" (Isaiah 51:7).


God's New Covenant would be based, not on physical descent, but on spiritual faithfulness. Only those with God's law written on their hearts would be God's people. They would be drawn from all nations, peoples, tribes and languages.
This prophesy was fulfilled by Jesus Christ who came to bring the New Covenant and to be the true sacrifice for the sins of the world: "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, 'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,' then He adds, 'Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful" (Hebrews 10:14-23). See also Hebrews 8:10-12.

Christ had the law of God in His heart, as was prophesied: "Then I said, "Behold, I come; In the scroll of the Book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart'' (Psalm 40:7,8).

The law of God must be written on our hearts. Paul told the believers at Corinth that they were a letter of Christ, "written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart" (2 Corinthians 3:2,3).


James tells us that we must receive the word of God into our hearts like a seed so it can produce fruit in our lives: "Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does" (James 1:21-25).
When the law of God is written on our hearts, it will permeate our whole being. It will influence our every thought, word and action.

We must be spiritually oriented to receive the word of God into our hearts and have the mind of Christ. Paul wrote of the apostolic ministry: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For 'Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?' But we have the mind of Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:12-16).


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/written.html

 

[savedandhappy1]

Does Christ forgive the sins of those who do not believe in Him or do we need to believe in Him to be forgiven? I think this again indicates that Christ healed those that believe in Him.

Christ had not died and rose yet, so all our sins were not on Him.

So what about the story of the 10 who had leprosy, and only one came back to thank and worship Him?

 

[savedandhappy1]

"Their faith" included that of the paralytic. Or do you suppose that his friends dragged him there against his will?

He couldn't move so don't think there would be any kicking going on.

Mark 2:1-5
1 And again He entered Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that He was in the house.
2 Immediately many gathered together, so that there was no longer room to receive them, not even near the door. And He preached the word to them.
3 Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men.
4 And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.”

So lets look at the scriptures again. First, we see how they, those carrying the paralytic couldn't get near the door because of the crowd. Second, we see those that carried him uncovering the roof. Third, we see them lowering him down to Jesus. Again, that would be those who carried the paralytic, and last but not least we see Jesus saying that by their faith.

Really looks like it was the friends faith that was used, but when it came to the healing that was a different story since the man had to get up. Guess....................well that is just how I see it, in other words just my humble opinion.

 

[OllieFranz]

"Their faith" included that of the paralytic. Or do you suppose that his friends dragged him there against his will?

He couldn't move so don't think there would be any kicking going on.

I said nothing about kicking. Not a word. But you saw "against his will" and read it as "kicking and screaming." If that's the way you read the Bible, no wonder you find things there that are not in the text.

Note: I'm just having a little fun with you. In reality, I assume that you are not as careless when you study the Bible. But then again, I don't know you.

 

[savedandhappy1]

And OllieFranz and I both agree on our answers and that you still haven't answered our questions, but then it's a logical fallacy to claim that just because you are the majority that you are right. The Pharisees also thought they had the truth. They were simply following the traditional beliefs that most Jews believed were what the scriptures said. As for Leviticus 18, since the law is fulfilled and does not need to be followed by Christians, none of it applies.

Many times when I enter a debate with fellow Christians and present verses from the Old Testament to them about some of life's laws and issues that were given to the Jews from GOD Almighty, they immediately give me answers such as "Oh, this is an old testament law that we Christians don't have to follow...." I find that to be quite an interesting statement.

Jesus orders Christians to follow the Law of Moses in the Old Testament: "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)" It is quite clear from these verses that Jesus fulfilling the laws of the Old Testament didn't mean we aren't to follow them.

We are "not under law" means we are not justified, or saved, by law.

 

[S53]

Thank you for posting that verse.

And of course, we all know that the Bible used to be one cohesive book. That OT/NT separation wasn't around until Tertullian.

 

[savedandhappy1]

I said nothing about kicking. Not a word. But you saw "against his will" and read it as "kicking and screaming." If that's the way you read the Bible, no wonder you find things there that are not in the text.

Note: I'm just having a little fun with you. In reality, I assume that you are not as careless when you study the Bible. But then again, I don't know you.

No, I saw "dragging against his will" and pictured a healthy person screaming and kicking, while being "dragged against his will". So thought I would throw out alittle funny accompanied with a smiley face.

Yep, you are right you don't know me, and it can be very hard to understand and communicate ones true meaning when typing sometimes, as I am sure we both know.

That being said, I don't believe you mean it when saying you don't assume that I am careless when studying the Bible. Or believe that that statement will be remembered as much as the statement: "If that's the way you read the Bible, no wonder you find things there that are not in the text " , will be remember and bring a smile from all those who believe you made some big score by saying it.

I will look at it though as if it is someone calling me a holy roller, or bible thumper, fundamentalist, conservative hater, and just continue to worry about pleasing the Lord. Boy, I'm thankful for the wonderful sermon my pastor preached Sunday. Thank You Lord!

Oh, by the way I hope you are having a wonderful day, I have been blessed with a great day, and hope all have had the same.

 

[OllieFranz]

savedandhappy1:

On these forums I try to stick to the issues. I usually do not know or care anything about the other posters and do not get personal, except when they use personal anecdotes to illustrate their point and I need to clarify a point about the anecdote.

Sometimes, I'll use a generalized "you" to represent a "typical" person; either a "typical" person in general, or a typical person, based on my experience (which may be skewed), who holds the view I am arguing against. In either case, the "you" is not personal to the person I am addressing.

That is as I said, what I try to do. My goal. I manage to make that goal most of the time. There are two occasions that represent the vast majority of the times that I fail to meet this goal.

One is when I am frustrated and provoked by someone who is not being honest or who seems to be posting just to try to get a "rise" out of me. Who will not answer straightforward questions, but would rather quibble about how those questions are phrased. When this happens, I repent of letting my anger get the better of my reason, and pray for the strength to hold out next time.

The other is when something tweaks my odd sense of humor. Knowing that my sense of humor is different from a lot of people's I usually can wait to share it with someone I know will appreciate it. But sometimes something seems so absurd or ironic I feel the need to share it immediately. Other times I think that something I found funny will resonate with others, that it is more mainstream and commonly funny. In this case I thought both were true.

Just before I posted, I realized that it might not be as common a funny as I thought, and it occurred to me that some people have trouble recognizing humor when it is directed at them. So I added the note and the smiley, to let you know that I was not being serious, and that I did not know you and did not actually think your reading was normally that sloppy.

You tell me that your remark was was not occasioned by sloppy reading, but by a similar stray humorous thought. That is something that would strike me as being doubly ironic, and so quite funny. Normally, that would be the end of it, we could both laugh over it.

But not in this case. Immediately after repeating that we don't know each other, and even adding that sometimes written communication lacks some nuances resulting in misunderstanding, you turn around and claim to fully understand my motives (giving them the worst possible spin) and rudely called me a liar. You owe me an apology.

 

[savedandhappy1]

savedandhappy1:

On these forums I try to stick to the issues. I usually do not know or care anything about the other posters and do not get personal, except when they use personal anecdotes to illustrate their point and I need to clarify a point about the anecdote.

Sometimes, I'll use a generalized "you" to represent a "typical" person; either a "typical" person in general, or a typical person, based on my experience (which may be skewed), who holds the view I am arguing against. In either case, the "you" is not personal to the person I am addressing.

That is as I said, what I try to do. My goal. I manage to make that goal most of the time. There are two occasions that represent the vast majority of the times that I fail to meet this goal.

One is when I am frustrated and provoked by someone who is not being honest or who seems to be posting just to try to get a "rise" out of me. Who will not answer straightforward questions, but would rather quibble about how those questions are phrased. When this happens, I repent of letting my anger get the better of my reason, and pray for the strength to hold out next time.

The other is when something tweaks my odd sense of humor. Knowing that my sense of humor is different from a lot of people's I usually can wait to share it with someone I know will appreciate it. But sometimes something seems so absurd or ironic I feel the need to share it immediately. Other times I think that something I found funny will resonate with others, that it is more mainstream and commonly funny. In this case I thought both were true.

Just before I posted, I realized that it might not be as common a funny as I thought, and it occurred to me that some people have trouble recognizing humor when it is directed at them. So I added the note and the smiley, to let you know that I was not being serious, and that I did not know you and did not actually think your reading was normally that sloppy.

You tell me that your remark was was not occasioned by sloppy reading, but by a similar stray humorous thought. That is something that would strike me as being doubly ironic, and so quite funny. Normally, that would be the end of it, we could both laugh over it.

But not in this case. Immediately after repeating that we don't know each other, and even adding that sometimes written communication lacks some nuances resulting in misunderstanding, you turn around and claim to fully understand my motives (giving them the worst possible spin) and rudely called me a liar. You owe me an apology.

Lets see I follow your example and even used the , but yet you think there is a difference in the meanings behind the post, interesting.

Is it because I didn't but the word Note in front of: "Oh, by the way I hope you are having a wonderful day, I have been blessed with a great day, and hope all have had the same. "

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

Funny, I thought this was the "Debates on Homosexuality" section. I didn't realize one had to actually be a homosexual and somehow be offended by what the Bible actually says to debate here. I'd appreciate if you could find that in the rules here. Until then, I'd appreciate if you'd quit applying false motivations -- and I wish you would have listened the first time I asked.

You have addressed my opinion, I am entitled to my opinion so please don’t try and tell me I am not. What would be good is you could address what the Bible says, providing you believe the Bible.

All the quotes I know from the Bible about adultery, greed, and theft are quite clear. I do see Christians all the time trying to argue the condemnations of fornication, divorce, slander, lying, gluttony, covetousness, etc. or at least trying to pretend they aren't sins.

Ok we may be referring to two different groups of people then, Christians that do and Christians that don’t.

Then again, I seem to recall explaining that in these types of debates I tend to just say homosexuality and not bother with homosexual acts

Well there is a difference otherwise Christ could not have saved us while we were still sinners.

In Christ there is no condemnation, but Christ makes it clear one is not in Christ if one is wilfully disobeying.

So are you saying that ..

Let me stop you there, as Christ’s NT teaching says He has not come to condemn but to save (John 3, John 5, Romans 8) so how am I saying it?

No, it says the men wanted to rape angels;

None of the versions I have read say that and I can see the Hebrew words are men not angels. Please provide your reference. I have already asked others on this board to provide a reference without success.

Again, are you stating that anything not specifically supported in the Bible is a sin?

No, are you? Are you stating that anything not specifically mentioned in the Bible is ok? I am asking you what Bible passages you are using to support homosexual practice.

Originally Posted by brightmorningstar http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48257886#post48257886
Well savedandhappy1 has answered it, and spot on, that’s our answer. If we agree 100% on the answer and you cant see it, it still doesn’t change the fact we have given our answer whether you accept it or not.
So now once again you give your answer ..Do you keep or dismiss all the incest, homosexual and bestiality in Leviticus 18?

And OllieFranz and I both agree on our answers

So what is it, yes or no?

 

[savedandhappy1]

To Maren, None of the versions I have read say that and I can see the Hebrew words are men not angels. Please provide your reference. I have already asked others on this board to provide a reference without success.

brightmorningstar[/B]]No, are you? Are you stating that anything not specifically mentioned in the Bible is ok? I am asking you what Bible passages you are using to support homosexual practice.

brightmorningstar,

Might want to point out again, that God had already decided to destroy Sodom and the other cities, before the men that were really angels but the people didn't know that arrived. So in other words what happen at Lot's house is just more proof of the many sins that were causing their destruction. It also shows how the men were wanting sex with men, as one of the many sins.