Jesus Would Approve of Same-Sex Marriage

[MayfieldFan]

You do realize you are arguing stuff like the "bible is very strict with slave owners" color me unimpressed.

 

edit: and saying a slave owner can beat a slave to death, and not be punished if the slave lives for a day before dying, is not very strict.

 

I used openbible.info as the source for the verses, and the default translation. I didn't read the verses all around each of the verses. I can tell what they mean from reading them. And so could all of those Christians throughout history. I don't mind a discussion, but it has to be intellectually honest. You lost me at the bible is very strict with slave owners.

Edited September 11, 2015 by MayfieldFan

[PP1]

I used openbible.info as the source for the verses, and the default translation. I didn't read the verses all around each of the verses. I can tell what they mean from reading them.

 

Okay, you got me beat. I can't do that. I have to read verses in context. Who is the audience, what is the time period, what does the original language say, etc. If I just pick a single verse out of the new testament without knowledge of context, then I can make the argument that the Bible tells us that Jesus was filled with egg yolk (Matthew 11:30). But if I read all of chapter 11 I see that Jesus was talking to the disciples of John the Baptist and then the surrounding groups of people that saw him perform miracles, yet still did not believe in him. When he is talking about his yolk, what he is really saying is that if the people are weary and burdened, then they should come to him and seek his strength. The word yolk is paired with burden. So when he says that his yolk is easy and his burden light, he is saying that his requirements are more simple then compared to the Pharisees.

 

Context is everything because without it, you can make things say anything that you want.

 

In Leviticus 25 where the year of Jubilee is being discussed, you are right that verse 44 gives permission for the Israelites to buy slaves from foreign countries. But if you keep reading through verse 55 you will see that they are not to treat them ruthlessly and that on the year of Jubilee they are to be released because in the grand scheme of things we all are "servants of God"

 

And get this, the word slave and servant are the same word in Hebrew "Eh-Bed"

 

Context is important. Without it people will think that God loves slavery and that Jesus is like an egg.

[MayfieldFan]

Yeah, context is important. And the context is that you are refusing to admit the slavery in the Bible is bad, evil. The context is that you have consistently failed to address the practices described in the Bible. So now you want to change the word slave to servant? Okay. Talk about how it is proper to beat your "servant." Or how it is moral for a man to own another man as property.

The more you twist these words, the more you ignore their import, the more you prove my point, which is that the Bible has no fixed meaning, and only means what you want it mean. You have your beliefs and then you pick up that book and voila, it magically conforms to fit your beliefs exactly.

[Bipsic]

Context is everything because without it, you can make things say anything that you want.

 

Context is important. Without it people will think that God loves slavery and that Jesus is like an egg.

 

I realize you guys are discussing slavery, but do you mind to address the second paragraph of post #59 ? Based on your previous posts, I think you are a preacher, so I know you have significantly more experience studying the Bible than myself.

 

When I think of homosexuality in the Bible, I believe sex only occurred in the environment I described. From my understandings, public committed relationships just didn't exist. Of course Jesus wasn't going to come and tell everyone something is ok if no one is actually doing it. I feel like the relatively few mentions of homosexual acts in the New Testament coupled with an environment drastically different than today's leads to same sex relationships just not really being that big of a deal.

[kypride]

Some of you are going to be really surprised and some are going to be really disappointed.

[B-Ball-fan]

Some of you are going to be really surprised and some are going to be really disappointed.

 

If you happen to be one of the few humans throughout time who's been given the indisputable key to the truth and all the answers please do share...please enlighten us all. It truly amazes me when any humans are selected from us all to be given all the goods to know the ultimate truth. Many on BGP are keepers of the truth....wow...what are the chances that so many within our little microcosm are also the selected ones with this truth?. Many here on BGP are indeed special in the whole big picture of humanity worldwide and throughout time. So Amazing!

[kypride]

Yes, I am amazing.

[MayfieldFan]

I realize you guys are discussing slavery, but do you mind to address the second paragraph of post #59 ? Based on your previous posts, I think you are a preacher, so I know you have significantly more experience studying the Bible than myself.

 

When I think of homosexuality in the Bible, I believe sex only occurred in the environment I described. From my understandings, public committed relationships just didn't exist. Of course Jesus wasn't going to come and tell everyone something is ok if no one is actually doing it. I feel like the relatively few mentions of homosexual acts in the New Testament coupled with an environment drastically different than today's leads to same sex relationships just not really being that big of a deal.

 

It is an open question as to whether the Bible even addresses homosexuality at all. Depends on which version you use. Some of the verses quoted earlier use the word "homosexual." But if you look at the same verses in the KJV, it uses words like "fornicators" and "effiminates." It does address same sex sex. Man shall not lay with man..... But others have made the point that the authors of the Bible only addressed those acts, because they didnt really have an understanding that people had sexual identities. And there are proscriptions against it, to be sure, but the point is made that they didnt really understand what was being proscribed.

[B-Ball-fan]

It is an open question as to whether the Bible even addresses homosexuality at all. Depends on which version you use. Some of the verses quoted earlier use the word "homosexual." But if you look at the same verses in the KJV, it uses words like "fornicators" and "effiminates." It does address same sex sex. Man shall not lay with man..... But others have made the point that the authors of the Bible only addressed those acts, because they didnt really have an understanding that people had sexual identities. And there are proscriptions against it, to be sure, but the point is made that they didnt really understand what was being proscribed.

 

MayfieldFan it's refreshing to see someone such as yourself take a realistic approach to this and study it from a not so fundamental position.

 

In 2015 there are still many that do not accept or understand homosexuality as just one of the various scientific facets of human sexuality.

 

Many have come along to understanding while others are either incapable of or unwilling to understand. With that said, it's not too hard to imagine that 2000 or more years ago people not having one bit of a clue, understanding, or acceptance of it for most true homosexuals likely kept it even more quiet then than they might've in today's world.

 

The authors of the Bible's understanding could've easily have been limited with regard to the topic and perhaps only spoke of it from a behavioral standpoint where some not so nice men over time have used homosexual type rape over other men as a means to show dominance.

 

Those situations are not good examples of what it means to be a real homosexual who is truly attracted to the same sex.

 

It's bewildering to me that so many of today's followers of the Bible seem not to be capable of understanding the difference and while they make very little attempt at truly understanding, some can just be downright mean spirited through their lack of understanding while they indoctrinate their offspring with the same type of misinformation and hatred all the while assuming they're doing the right thing by condemning.

 

Some come to know better, but through years of their hatred it's still much easier to cling to the hatred than it is to aim at kindness and understanding.

[Bipsic]

It is an open question as to whether the Bible even addresses homosexuality at all. Depends on which version you use. Some of the verses quoted earlier use the word "homosexual." But if you look at the same verses in the KJV, it uses words like "fornicators" and "effiminates." It does address same sex sex. Man shall not lay with man..... But others have made the point that the authors of the Bible only addressed those acts, because they didnt really have an understanding that people had sexual identities. And there are proscriptions against it, to be sure, but the point is made that they didnt really understand what was being proscribed.

 

I was confused as well when I saw the word "homosexuals" quoted above because I had never seen it in any scripture I have read. I use the Laudate app and pulled up the two translations it has. Rather than "homosexual", the Douay Rheims says "effeminate" and the New American Bible RE states "boy prostitutes". These are all different things! Even more interesting is the note linked from the NAB.

The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26-27; 1 Tm 1:10.

[hidinout]

Been a good discussion .

 

From Mayfield Fan above # 68 - But others have made the point that the authors of the Bible only addressed those acts, because they didnt really have an understanding that people had sexual identities. And there are proscriptions against it, to be sure, but the point is made that they didnt really understand what was being proscribed.

 

My worry is when we start questioning whether the writers of the Bible understood something or not , or whether they could address current issues . Its my own view that the words of the Book are God breathed as stated in scripture . That there is nothing " wrong" or incomplete with the Bible . You can't subtract nor add to it . This position that the writers of the book don't understand todays committed homosexual relationships just doesnt pass muster with me . The God who foretold things about His son 100's of years in advance and spoke the universe into existence was perfectly capable of addressing this issue further if He deemed it necessary . I really wish the book did go further into detail , but it doesnt . It leaves me confused and I admit I just dont understand it . How can I expect God to forgive me my sins but tell a gay believer " no " I dont forgive yours . My thoughts are that when the book says " they will not enter the kingdom of heaven " that God is talking about the earthly kingdom not the eternal kingdom. I hope He forgives both the hetero and homo sexual sinner . But the words of the book are so harsh towards same sex relations .

[Randy Parker]

A man by the name of William Loader has written extensively on the subject of sexuality & New Testament times. As I understand it, Mr. Loader is a leading expert on the subject. He also does not have a problem with homosexuality or homosexual relationships, but he writes extensively about homosexual orientation being a very familiar concept in New Testament times.

 

Additionally, Romans chapter 1 speaks of men burning with passion "for one another." That indicates a two-way street of desire, as opposed to the one-sidedness of rape, domination, or man/boy relationships.

 

Finally, when Jesus himself spoke of marriage in Matthew 19, he quoted (verbatim) the original ideal introduced in Genesis 2 (a man and woman who leave father & mother, are united in marriage, & then become one flesh). It seems to me that if Jesus wanted to broaden the ideal for marriage, he would have done so. After all, he broadened many other Old Testament commands--specifically in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). He said the Old Testament law condemned murder, but he made that standard tougher by condemning the hate that leads to murder. He said the Old Testament law condemned adultery, but he made that standard tougher by condemning the lustful thoughts that lead to the act of adultery. So, again, it seems to me that if he wanted to change something with regard to marriage he would have done so. Yet when he spoke of it, he word-for-word cited Genesis 2:24.

[B-Ball-fan]

I have a question for followers and believers of the Bible.

 

Many look to the Bible as the definitive guidance for their lives and their perceived eternal afterlife, and consider this book to be the inspired word of God.

 

There are numerous writings throughout the history of man, and some of them too are spiritual guides to various religions.

 

The Bible has been for many years no doubt very popular and the central writings among Christians, and the Old Testament among Jews.

 

Outside of the fact that most of you were likely raised to believe it to be the word of God, what is it other than that popular word "faith" and your upbringing that convinces you that you are indeed following without a doubt the truth, and although the works were written by men just like all writings throughout time, that these works are the inspired word of God, and worthy of your devout attention and belief?

 

Because of this belief and devotions toward this book that some are convinced is the truth, many will use it as their trusted guide to determine just about every facet of their lives, and their view of the lives of humanity.

 

From where does this certainty about its infallibility evolve? What is the driving force behind you being convinced that it's that one true special book that you feel obliged to follow and believe?

[hidinout]

While I wouldnt call my search " exhaustive " by any means I've read numerous books and looked upon the history of the Bible and used what brain I have to examine what is stated and concluded it makes nearly perfect sense out of what could seem like a senseless existence . The historians agreeing there was a man named Jesus who walked earth born in Bethlehem , raised in Judea , from the blood line of David and that he was crucified never to be seen again . The number of texts that have been uncovered that all agree with each other . The archaeology of the area . Everything points to a supreme order . The universe and its order screams " There is a God " to me . A great read is " A case for faith " by former atheist Lee Strobel . I hope that answers the question BBF .

[hidinout]

The Old Testament: the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps the greatest archaeological find of our time. Produced by Jewish monastic Essenes, the scrolls number about 800; 200 of which are of biblical material. In 1947, shepherds discovered them quite by accident in caves above the Wadi Qumran Valley, northwest of the Dead Sea. A few of the scholars and archaeologists who contributed to their discovery and verification include E. L. Sukenik, G. Lankester Harding, Roland G. de Vaux, Yigael Yadin and William F. Albright.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain at least fragments of every book in the Old Testament except the book of Esther. More than ten scrolls were beautifully preserved intact including two copies of Isaiah. 2 Professor Millar Burrows of Yale University assigns these copies to the first century BC. Johns Hopkins University Professor William F. Albright places them more conservatively in the second century BC.3

 

These copies of Isaiah, written 1,000 years earlier than the previously oldest known copies have proven to be "word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. [emphasis mine] " 4 Great respect must therefore be given to the interim copyists. Diligently slaving for accuracy, they apparently achieved it:

 

Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word 'light' which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the LXX [septuagint] and IQ Is [first cave of Qumran, Isaiah scroll]. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage. 5

 

Today, much of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection remains with the many individual scholars to whom the various scrolls and fragments were assigned and named after. Some of the documents are owned by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and are on display in the Shrine of the Book Museum in West Jerusalem. These include one Isaiah scroll which was written between 150-100 BC, another around 50 BC, a commentary on Habakkuk penned between 100-50 BC, and two other documents.