O Reilly just said Jesus never said anything about homosexual marriage or contraception

[ValPal]

No. It is YOU who does not see the obvious: the “statement” "does not exist"

And yet another person just concurred with Mr. O’Reilly’s statement.

 

[mcrow]

And yet another person just concurred with Mr. O’Reilly’s statement.

Jesus said the OT teachings are still valid so therefore Jesus agrees that gay relations are a sin. He didn’t say in his own words (or at least it’s not recorded) exaclty “homosexual relations are bad” but he clearly supported OT teachings which clearly are against it so IMO he did say this himself indirectly.

 

[ValPal]

There is no value in honoring error.

BTW, who’s honoring error? Where did that come from?

Just pointing out the fact that Jesus himself on Earth does not appear to have discussed homosexuality does not mean one is honoring error.

 

[lemondiesel]

One cannot claim He never spoke on it. A suitable claim is there is no record of the Authors of the Gospels recording it.

a little off topic but how literate were people just decades after his death?

 

[ValPal]

Jesus said the OT teachings are still valid so therefore Jesus agrees that gay relations are a sin.

Separate issue. Not O’Reilly’s point; your point.

He didn’t say in his own words (or at least it’s not recorded)

O’Reilly’s point; repeatedly (though often inadvertently) proved in this thread.

exaclty “homosexual relations are bad” but he clearly supported OT teachings which clearly are against it so IMO he did say this himself indirectly.

Separate issue.

You have to be really careful

Exactly, I suggest sticking with the point, not the non-point. I’m a good test taker because I read the question and answer the question. Some people are not good test takers because they bring in a whole lot of other information not relevant to the question asked.

BTW, what you cited is an example of why you can’t take the general and assume it includes all specific examples. Jesus supported some OT teachings, not all. One very relevant to this thread is that divorce was permitted in the OT, and Christ straightened us out on that.

 

[doormouse73]

of course it was about in those days…homosexual acts not marriage.if it wasnt about then does that tell you some thing about the law???jews and Christians??

just go back to Moses and he will tell you all about the sexual lives of the sinners then.

it just wasnt named homosexual or lesbian etc…back then.

Jesus was a jew who followed the O T.he came to fulfill it.

why did he have to put that law straight.it didnt need to be spoke about because it wasnt being corrupted.

but others were.

why are you defending this man btw???

 

[Brendan]

a little off topic but how literate were people just decades after his death?

Well, you have a simple fisherman like Peter writing whole books of the Bible. Then again, God also gave Peter the ability to be heard in any language.

If God wished elements of His Word to be written, He would enable it.

But then again, God also wished for a substantial part of the Revelation to the Church to be passed via oral Sacred Tradition.

And that is no less the Word of God than anything written in Sacred Scripture.

 

[mcrow]

BTW, who’s honoring error? Where did that come from?

Just pointing out the fact that Jesus himself on Earth does not appear to have discussed homosexuality does not mean one is honoring error.

That’s dishonest at the least. As I’ve noted multiple times, Jesus said the OT is valid:

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

The OT Says:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

Even in the NT:

Romans 1“ (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

[Brendan]

O’Reilly’s point; repeatedly (though often inadvertently) proved in this thread.

.

Actually, no it was not.

O’Reilly’s point would only be valid if it was someone other than Christ who gave us the O.T.

That is clearly not true, therefore, O’Reilly’s point is in error.

 

[mcrow]

Separate issue. Not O’Reilly’s point; your point.

O’Reilly’s point; repeatedly (though often inadvertently) proved in this thread.

Separate issue.

Exactly, I suggest sticking with the point, not the non-point. I’m a good test taker because I read the question and answer the question. Some people are not good test takers because they bring in a whole lot of other information not relevant to the question asked.

BTW, what you cited is an example of why you can’t take the general and assume it includes all specific examples. Jesus supported some OT teachings, not all. One very relevant to this thread is that divorce was permitted in the OT, and Christ straightened us out on that.

These are not separate things. Jesus approved of the OT and said so in the NT, therefore he believes that gay relations are a sin. You dance around this like you believe gay relations are OK. There are a lot of teachings we learn from the bible that Jesus didn’t say directly but we understand the meanings. Ever heard of a parable?

 

[mcrow]

Actually, no it was not.

O’Reilly’s point would only be valid if it was someone other than Christ who gave us the O.T.

That is clearly not true, therefore, O’Reilly’s point is in error.

And with all respcet to O’Reilly but I doubt he has a 10th of the knowledge on Catholic Apologetics and bible study that most of the people on these forums do. I would be that if you presented the arguements to him that have been posted in this thread that he wouldn’t be able to refute them.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

of course it was about in those days…

just go back to Moses and he will tell you all about the sexual lives of the sinners then.

it just wasnt named homosexual or lesbian etc…

Jesus was a jew who followed the O T.he came to fulfill it.

why did he have to put that law straight.it didnt need to be spoke about because it wasnt being corrupted.

but others were.

why are you defending this man btw???

You may want to try using whole sentences and complete ideas, you post is a little hard to understand. I personally don’t like O’Rielly, I am just pointing out that we don’t have records of Jesus directly saying, “No homosexual marriage,” or, “Don’t use contraception.” The Church is clear on it’s teaching though. O’Reilly doesn’t understand that just because Jesus didn’t say these things precisely, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a true teaching. People expect him to have the understanding of a Catholic Theologian, which isn’t reasonable. If people approach him (through letters) in the way I have been approached in this forum or how some people have responded in this thread, then it would weaken our point of view substantially.

 

[utah_rose]

He said this tonight on The Factor.

How does he know Jesus never spoke on it?

He needs some emails I think…

I listened to him last night (and he’s a good Catholic and didn’t hear him mention anything about this. I believe there’s nothing in Scripture but both are part of the Church’s teachings. Homosexual marriage and contraception I doubt were issues when Jesus was living although some cultures like the Greeks and Romans probably practiced it. Either he didn’t say anything about it, or its not recorded. A good source always should be the Catechism of the Catholic Church. By the way, he is very bullish against abortion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, you have a simple fisherman like Peter writing whole books of the Bible. Then again, God also gave Peter the ability to be heard in any language.

If God wished elements of His Word to be written, He would enable it.

But then again, God also wished for a substantial part of the Revelation to the Church to be passed via oral Sacred Tradition.

And that is no less the Word of God than anything written in Sacred Scripture.

There’s scholastic opinion that Peter and some of the Apostles were illiterate. Most Jews were good at memorizing though and they pretty much memorize scripture as it was taught to them by rabbis. A good evidence of this is the 2 different styles of writing of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Those opposed claim that they were written by 2 different people. Those defending them as authentic works of Peter state that Peter had 2 different scribes, which is more likely if Peter couldn’t actually write.

Remember, Peter speaking in tongues wasn’t an ability he had anytime he wished for it to happen. Those were specific moments and specific events.

 

[doormouse73]

You may want to try using whole sentences and complete ideas, you post is a little hard to understand. I personally don’t like O’Rielly, I am just pointing out that we don’t have records of Jesus directly saying, “No homosexual marriage,” or, “Don’t use contraception.” The Church is clear on it’s teaching though. O’Reilly doesn’t understand that just because Jesus didn’t say these things precisely, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a true teaching. People expect him to have the understanding of a Catholic Theologian, which isn’t reasonable. If people approach him (through letters) in the way I have been approached in this forum or how some people have responded in this thread, then it would weaken our point of view substantially.

why would it weaken your point of view?

do you speak for him in some way?

if he doesnt know,then why come out with it.surley he knows what he has/is doing?

if not then why has he got a job like he has,he must be as thick as two short planks,if thats the case.

you know and understand.stop this nonscence,and you tell him,by letter.and stop trying to cover for him on here.you do yourself no justice what so ever.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

why would it weaken your point of view?

do you speak for him in some way?

if he doesnt know,then why come out with it.surley he knows what he has/is doing?

if not then why has he got a job like he has,he must be as thick as two short planks,if thats the case.

you know and understand.stop this nonscence,and you tell him,by letter.and stop trying to cover for him on here.you do yourself no justice what so ever.

Because they are arguments expecting him to have the same level of understanding of the issue as a theologian. That is unreasonable and the arguments just won’t make much sense to him. I don’t speak for him and don’t even like him. I just understand where he is coming from because I used to think that way myself. He just doesn’t understand the connection between the fact that Church teaching, the old testament, and new testament work together. He thinks that only what Jesus says is binding so he is speaking from that point of view. He is a smart man, just doesn’t have deep understanding of every subject.

Don’t treat me or talk to me like a child especially when you are misspelling words . You are insulting my intelligence. Do not belittle me. I do not think you understand the points I am making at all.

 

[doormouse73]

Because they are arguments expecting him to have the same level of understanding of the issue as a theologian. That is unreasonable and the arguments just won’t make much sense to him. I don’t speak for him and don’t even like him. I just understand where he is coming from because I used to think that way myself. He just doesn’t understand the connection between the fact that Church teaching, the old testament, and new testament work together. He thinks that only what Jesus says is binding so he is speaking from that point of view. He is a smart man, just doesn’t have deep understanding of every subject.

Don’t teat me or talk to me like a child especially when you are misspelling words . You are insulting my intelligence. Do not belittle me. I do not think you understand the points I am making at all.

Don’t teat me or talk to me like a child especially when you are misspelling words . You are insulting my intelligence. Do not belittle me. I do not think you understand the points I am making at all

im sorry if ive made you feel that way.it was not my intention.

its a very emotive thread and i get a little emotional on these subjects.

once again im sorry.

and i do understand now you have said this…

I just understand where he is coming from because I used to think that way myself. He just doesn’t understand the connection between the fact that Church teaching, the old testament, and new testament work together.

i didnt before,so if you will except my apologies.

my spelling in awful i admit.but my faith and understanding are spot on.

but it did make me laugh when i read this from your last post…

Don’t teat me or talk to me like a child especially when you are misspelling words

and im not taking the mickey here,im trying to lighten it up,thats all.

typos happen all the time i know…

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Ya, and if you read my post you would realize that I said that homosexual marriage didn’t exist during that time so that is why he didn’t directly address it. You aren’t really reading my posts or conviently ignoring parts of my posts to change what I am saying. Please read my posts and stop making it sound like I am saying things that I am not.

If Jesus were to say something like:

“Eating only fish is permissible.”

Then that means, everything else, without having to specify it means that it is forbidden. He doesnt have to go through every article of food and say “Nope!” That one statement pretty much excludes everything else that is not fish.

By saying and defining what marriage is, He is directly speaking about it. That means if homosexuality doesn’t fit the bill between a man and a woman, it ain’t marriage. Very exclusive statement and very direct.

 

[johnnyjones]

If Jesus were to say something like:

“Eating only fish is permissible.”

Then that means, everything else, without having to specify it means that it is forbidden. He doesnt have to go through every article of food and say “Nope!” That one statement pretty much excludes everything else that is not fish.

By saying and defining what marriage is, He is directly speaking about it. That means if homosexuality doesn’t fit the bill between a man and a woman, it ain’t marriage. Very exclusive statement and very direct.

Did God make them male and female for another reason than the one outlined by Jesus?

 

[SamH]

He said this tonight on The Factor.

How does he know Jesus never spoke on it?

He needs some emails I think…

There’s no proof Jesus said to not eat dirt on the floor at a stable either, some things don’t need to be said…