Jesus Never Said It!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tparsons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm… reading up on Catholic Answer’s tract on Homosexuality, I found these passages from the Bible, all from the RSV version, which for me (at least for me) most explicitly condemns homosexual relations and, in turn, homosexual marriages:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error…Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Romans 1:24-27, 32)

On analysis:
  1. It seems to me that male homosexual relations are downright sinful according to the Bible; female homosexual relations can be inferred from the passage from Romans;
  2. Yes, none of these were uttered by Jesus Himself, but a) in the case of Leviticus the commandment was said by God unto Moses, and b) in the case of Romans it was St. Paul, one of the Apostles who were authorized to teach Jesus’ teachings to the whole world
Why didn’t I include the other passages in the tract? Well, the passages from Genesis about Sodom and Gomorrah had to be interpreted in light of the books of Jude and Ezekiel, and the passage from the 1st Letter to the Corinthians I think is not that clear, as the allusion to homosexuality is not that distinct in other versions of the Bible as it was in NIV.
 
bengal_fan said:
i have read that one of the possible explanations of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” is that joseph was a much older man than mary and agreed to take her in as his “wife” (never intending to have sex with her as was a somewhat common practice for parents to give their daughters to a “benefactor” for protection yet those daughters were consecrated virgins). he possibly has other wives who bore him children…
Click to expand...
Aside from the substitution of “brothers and sisters” for “cousins”, I have heard it said that Joseph could have been a widower when he took Mary as his wife. Is it historically accurate that polygamy was practiced by the Jews of that time period?

Your reference to Mary being a consecrated virgin certainly squares with Catholic dogma that she was a perpetual virgin.

campus.udayton.edu/mary//marypage21.html
 
tparsons said:
A person I know who is a practicing methodist said this about the union of a man and woman…What is he thinking?

*Any self-proclaimed “Christian” argument against homosexuality is bogus.

Jesus never mentioned it, ever.

Also, any self-proclaimed “Christian” argument that declares marriage must be defined as “one man and one woman” is also bogus. The Bible clearly and frequently contradicts this notion.

Our modern concept of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is a modern cultural evolution. Polygamy was common during Christ’s time, and he said nothing to forbid it. In fact, the concept of choosing your own mate is a thoroughly modern development. For the vast bulk of Judeo-Christian history, arranged marriage was the norm. And One-Man, One-Woman is a fairly recent
development.
*
Click to expand...
Condemnation of homosexual activities was mandated in the Old Testament (read Torah, the first five books of the Bible). Jesus followed his Jewish heritage, taught in synagogues, discussed scripture with the priest of the temple. Why reiterate what was already apparent in the religion He upheld?🙂
 
truagape said:
Okay, and while I’m looking, find one example in the entire bible that shows the institution of slavery as being condemned as an evil and dehumanizing institution.
Click to expand...
So, your point is that if the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery “as an evil and dehumanizing institution,” then that somehow abrogates those very clear sections that say marriage is between a man and a woman and that any sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and woman is wrong?

While you’re reading the following site, consider that the people who ended chattel slavery were Christians, and that they used the Bible as part of their toolkit.

gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
So, your point is that if the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery “as an evil and dehumanizing institution,” then that somehow abrogates those very clear sections that say marriage is between a man and a woman and that any sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and woman is wrong?

While you’re reading the following site, consider that the people who ended chattel slavery were Christians, and that they used the Bible as part of their toolkit.

gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say all that…
I just asked if you would find a passage in the bible that condemns the institution of slavery as being evil and dehumanizing. Will you do that first chance you get?
 
luv_pis said:
Why didn’t I include the other passages in the tract? Well, the passages from Genesis about Sodom and Gomorrah had to be interpreted in light of the books of Jude and Ezekiel, and the passage from the 1st Letter to the Corinthians I think is not that clear, as the allusion to homosexuality is not that distinct in other versions of the Bible as it was in NIV.
Click to expand...
How interesting! This raises far more questions than it answers.
 
truagape said:
I wish you would maintain that level of scrutinizing the details in regards to scripture and homosexuality
Click to expand...
Well, the difference truagape is that I don’t “scrutinize” the details in scripture to try to justify sin. I don’t find a time in Chuch history where homosexuality is not considered a sin. To me, that is significant.

Your slavery question is a* non sequitur *as far as I am concerned, unless you are trying to justify slavery. 🤷
 
truagape said:
How interesting! This raises far more questions than it answers.
Click to expand...
Yep, at least if you look only at the later part of my post.

But how about the first parts?

Remember, I said that the first three passages from Scripture are the MOST EXPLICIT for me, i.e. they look to me to be very clear on their stance on homosexual relationships. The latter passages that I alluded to but did not quote were not so clear. HOWEVER, these latter passages can never REFUTE what the earlier three passages said, however I (or I guess anyone) read or interpret or translate them. In fact, reading them closely, I would say these latter passages even support them!

Therefore, I cannot deny that the Scripture is quite explicit (for me) what its stance is on homosexual relationships…at least for male to male sexual relations, and ultimately male-to-male marriage 👍

Of course, if I am wrong, you can please point out my errors.
 
tparsons said:
Jesus never mentioned it, ever.
Click to expand...
Really? Let’s see…
www.drbo.org:
Matthew 19, 3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
Click to expand...
www.drbo.org:
Mark 10, 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Click to expand...
And of course remember the newest rendition of Scripture, Thou shalt honour thy father and his domestic partner.
 
rlg94086 said:
Well, the difference truagape is that I don’t “scrutinize” the details in scripture to try to justify sin. I don’t find a time in Chuch history where homosexuality is not considered a sin. To me, that is significant.
Click to expand...
And while you’re looking back into church history, see if you find any of the Church Fathers using the term “arsenokoites”, found in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 in condemning homosexuality. To me, *that’s *significant!
 
rlg94086 said:
Well, the difference truagape is that I don’t “scrutinize” the details in scripture to try to justify sin.
Click to expand...
I should hope not! In regards to homosexuality and scripture, I think that you have successfully proven that the last thing you do is “scrutinize” the details. In our discussion of Sodom and Gomorrah, your reaction to the scriptural “details” has consistently been to overlook them. And why wouldn’t you, it fuels your prejudice to do so!
 
truagape said:
I should hope not! In regards to homosexuality and scripture, I think that you have successfully proven that the last thing you do is “scrutinize” the details. In our discussion of Sodom and Gomorrah, your reaction to the scriptural “details” has consistently been to overlook them. And why wouldn’t you, it fuels your prejudice to do so!
Click to expand...
What prejudice is that?
 
luv_pis said:
Hmm… reading up on Catholic Answer’s tract on Homosexuality, I found these passages from the Bible, all from the RSV version, which for me (at least for me) most explicitly condemns homosexual relations and, in turn, homosexual marriages:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error…Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Romans 1:24-27, 32)

On analysis:
  1. It seems to me that male homosexual relations are downright sinful according to the Bible; female homosexual relations can be inferred from the passage from Romans;
  2. Yes, none of these were uttered by Jesus Himself, but a) in the case of Leviticus the commandment was said by God unto Moses, and b) in the case of Romans it was St. Paul, one of the Apostles who were authorized to teach Jesus’ teachings to the whole world
Why didn’t I include the other passages in the tract? Well, the passages from Genesis about Sodom and Gomorrah had to be interpreted in light of the books of Jude and Ezekiel, and the passage from the 1st Letter to the Corinthians I think is not that clear, as the allusion to homosexuality is not that distinct in other versions of the Bible as it was in NIV.
Click to expand...
I would challenge you to take your analysis a bit further. Are you up for it?
 
Sure! But not now, sorry if this sounds like a cop out, I need to sleep, have to go to work and I won’t be here until 3 days later.

If you want, you can post right away and I’ll respond when I come back, then we’ll have a nice conversation 🙂

This is going to be interesting 🙂

However, I have just read about *arsenokoites *upon your mentioning it a few posts back and I think I’m in hot water now

😃
 
rlg94086 said:
What prejudice is that?
Click to expand...
For starters, your prejudice against the truth. It was like pulling teeth to get you to finally come close to harmonizing with scripture regarding the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah’s fate. Not one time does scripture equate those cities with homosexuality. Not one!! And in your own round about way, you were forced to concede, although barely, to scripture itself. Note your following comments after day’s of discussion:

*I don’t know for certain and can’t know for certain from the event at Sodom and Gommorah, whether homosexual acts were part of the reason that God destroyed S & G. The Jewish traditional understanding was that the reason S & G was destroyed is due to their wickedness in general, especially in their treatment of guests:
jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…rch=pentapolis

Quote:
God had announced His determination to destroy these cities because of their wickedness…

The Talmud, like the Bible, ascribes the fate of Sodom and the other cities of Pentapolis to the wickedness of their inhabitants; and when the sins of the people of Jerusalem are enumerated, on the basis of Ezek. xvi. 48-50, the attempt is made to show them less heinous than those of the inhabitants of Sodom (Sanh.104b). There were four judges in Sodom (ib. 109b), named respectively Shaḳḳarai (“liar”), Shaḳrarai (“habitual liar”), Zayyafa (“deceiver”), and Maẓle Dina (“perverter of the Law”). In Sodom every one who gave bread and water to the poor was condemned to death by fire (Yalḳ., Gen. 83). Two girls, one poor and the other rich, went to a well; and the former gave the latter her jug of water, receiving in return a vessel containing bread. When this became known, both were burned alive

This does not mean that homosexual acts are not sins though, which I’m assuming is your point with this thread. The treatment of homosexual acts can be found in other parts of the Bible.
__________________*
 
truagape said:
For starters, your prejudice against the truth. It was like pulling teeth to get you to finally come close to harmonizing with scripture regarding the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah’s fate. Not one time does scripture equate those cities with homosexuality. Not one!! And in your own round about way, you were forced to concede, although barely, with scripture. Note your following comments after day’s of discussion:

I don’t know for certain and can’t know for certain from the event at Sodom and Gommorah, whether homosexual acts were part of the reason that God destroyed S & G. The Jewish traditional understanding was that the reason S & G was destroyed is due to their wickedness in general, especially in their treatment of guests:
jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…rch=pentapolis

Quote:
God had announced His determination to destroy these cities because of their wickedness…

*The Talmud, like the Bible, ascribes the fate of Sodom and the other cities of Pentapolis to the wickedness of their inhabitants; and when the sins of the people of Jerusalem are enumerated, on the basis of Ezek. xvi. 48-50, the attempt is made to show them less heinous than those of the inhabitants of Sodom (Sanh.104b). There were four judges in Sodom (ib. 109b), named respectively Shaḳḳarai (“liar”), Shaḳrarai (“habitual liar”), Zayyafa (“deceiver”), and Maẓle Dina (“perverter of the Law”). In Sodom every one who gave bread and water to the poor was condemned to death by fire (Yalḳ., Gen. 83). Two girls, one poor and the other rich, went to a well; and the former gave the latter her jug of water, receiving in return a vessel containing bread. When this became known, both were burned alive *

This does not mean that homosexual acts are not sins though, which I’m assuming is your point with this thread. The treatment of homosexual acts can be found in other parts of the Bible.
__________________
Click to expand...
That is prejudice? :confused: You have funny definitions 😛 , and you aren’t supposed to bring up other threads according to the forum rules…and I would add, especially threads where you mainly irritated people by your uncivil style of discussing things.
 
luv_pis said:
Closely.

So tell me truagape, can you prove to me that those latter passages refute my understanding of the Scriptures about this? Or can you find me someone who will?

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
To put it bluntly, yes. Yes you are very wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top