Posted on 03/05/2014 11:26:53 AM PST by OneVike
Lately I have been confronted by individuals I thought understood the Scriptures, only to learn that they think God did not say what he said, or that Christ changed the rules on sex when he walked with the apostles. Sadly, there are too many false teachers leading many poor souls straight to hell by claiming that Jesus never spoke against the union of two men or two women. Thus they claim that homosexuality is now either condoned by God, or since the day Moses spoke to God, Moses misunderstood Him about what he said about sexual perversion. So until recently, Jewish religious leaders and every Christian theologian since Peter, John, and Paul were all wrong. Thus we are to believe that those Christians who support homosexuality in the church today are more enlightened then all the others ever were.
I'll begin my defense of the truth by stating that except for the ceremonials ones (which Jesus repealed), all of the Mosaic laws are still in force.That is because there were three categories of laws given to Israel: civil, ceremonial, and moral. The civil laws were ONLY given to the Israelites. The ceremonial laws were filled and abolished in Christ. The moral laws, such as the Ten Commandments and other Mosaic moral laws are universal. They are part of Natural and Divine Law. Homosexuality is clearly contrary to moral and natural laws. All forms of homosexuality are condemned, past, present, and future.
What Jesus did was fulfill the laws handed down by God. Matthew 5:17 If you look at the teachings of Jesus, you will see that he reiterated all the OT laws. What He did do away with however, was the ceremonials laws that were needed to gain forgiveness and be pure before God, but now we look to Christ for our salvation instead of through the works that God required the Israelites to do. So I can say without hesitation that Jesus also did not repeal the prohibition against homosexuality.
There will be many who will now automatically accuse me of claiming that those who commit adultery and other such immoral crimes should be stoned as the law of Moses commanded. However, what they fail to understand is that even under the Mosaic law, the death penalty was not the only requirement for the penalty of breaking the laws of murder, adultery, and other such crimes.
In 2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12, we learn about King David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba, and we also learn about him having Bathsheba's husband Uriah killed because he......
(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...
Deuteronomy 23:17-18: “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”
It appears to me that in Matthew 7:21-23 Christ is speaking of Judgment Day. So you can’t really say that’s pre-grace, if you can see my point.
Agreed there’s no such thing as a “works” salvation (Eph. 2:8-9). We’re saved by the grace of God.
The problem with homosexuality is that the Holy Spirit in Romans 1 declares that its practitioners are turned over to a reprobate mind. That’s a worthless, non-functioning mind that’s essentially spiritually insane.
In fact, Christ also spoke of “dogs” and “swine” just a little earlier in Matthew 7:
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
It’s obvious He wasn’t speaking of the four-footed critters. “Swine” is easy. That’s anybody who insists on wallowing in his or her filth. “Dogs” is referring to homosexuals, as mentioned earlier. Once we know either of them for what they are, Christ commanded us to refrain from evangelizing them, because they tend to be turned over to a reprobate mind and tend to get violent when confronted with their sin, however gently.
I'm such a square that calling me a square is taken as a compliment. :)
The NT was written in Greek, but spoken in either Hebrew or Aramaic, and Imperial Aramaic is very similar to Biblical Hebrew. So “dogs” wouldn’t have the Greek meaning, but the Hebrew/Aramaic meaning.
No, don't tell me . . . that would be "un-American."
The D’rat party has embraced most of the Communist goals as entered in the 1963 Congressional Record.
A few of those goals that relate to this thread include:
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
I am not sure the term “dogs” always refers to homosexuals, although I have mentioned in posts above where it obviously does. But remember the discussion between Jesus and the Canaanite woman where he talked about not throwing bread to dogs, which I suspect was a Jewish saying of the time. There He appeared to be referring to Gentiles. But Jews at that time often also referred to Romans or Greeks as “dogs,” because they considered them unclean (a Jew would not enter their house for example, see Acts 11) and many engaged in homosexual activity because it was approved of in the pagan Graeco-Roman culture. Why “dogs”? Because of the posture of dogs when they have sexual relations, similar to homosexuals.
I also think that Christ in Matthew 7:21 was just describing what a real Christian will do, and that’s strive for obedience to God. Not to attain salvation, but because we love and fear Him and want to glorify Him by obeying Him.
A deluded “Christian” will not strive for obedience, but instead will perform works to “earn” salvation. And all the while they do things like support abortion and homosexuality and call God a liar, thereby being willfully disobedient to Him.
Agreed. Sometimes it was used as a term of derision for Gentiles, as you mentioned. Context is everything. But the Revelation 22 context seems pretty clear and the Matthew 7 context seems pretty clear too.
Agreed it could be the posture, but the Hebrew word “keleb” can literally mean “to yelp” too, and they’d be yelping for an obvious reason.
I understand that many believers may be naive about some things, but to not understand basic truth about law, sin and our standing in God through repentance is not in that category. Frankly, I’d be leery of anyone claiming faith in Christ and rejecting the clear Biblical authority in teaching our beliefs. In fact, I wouldn’t accept their profession of faith as a basis for fellowship.
More broadly, Jesus never altered God’s expression that humanity must behave in harmony with His Law, and one aspect of that Law relates to sexual conduct. If anything, Jesus elaborated on the intent of the Law because He instructed that not only must people not commit adultery, they must not allow sexual desire to rise to the level of living out the act in the privacy of the mind.
Later, in Revelation chapter 22 and verse 15, He revealed to John that no person who practices sexual immorality, as God defines it, will be granted salvation.
What part of Homosexual behavior is a sin is hard to understand?
Having said that, what human, secular, governments declare to be legal sends a message that a lot of people presume is a moral standard. They think that when government declares some behavior to no longer be a crime, that it becomes moral in God’s eyes. That could not be further from the truth.
Similarly, just because government presumes the power to declare two men or two women to be married that God approves of the new “family”. By God’s definition, they cannot be married and their domestic living arrangements and personal relationships are not a “family”, as God defines it.
Proponents of same-sex marriage can no more hide behind the institution of marriage than they can hide behind the Ten Commandments plaque that they insist must not be on any State property.
We agree on that.
Amen.
Thanks, that is true.
I guess in the context of this discussion I was meaning moral/spiritual laws, but it’s funny I have used that particular part of Scripture myself in other discussions. :)
To a liberal mind, that talk of man and woman is ambiguous. What about a man that was born into a woman’s body, they would say. He can be with a man, since he is really a woman, notwithstanding the penis. Liberals have to change the definitions of things in order to avoid eternal truths. That’s what the “gay marriage” fight is all about, the definition of a word. Whatever those abominable partnerships are, they are not “marriage”. But they have changed the definition of the word so as to destroy the meaning of the original thing, a union between a man and a woman.
It’s definitely an emotionally charged subject. I find myself thinking that the Dems could not win elections without the gay vote, the baby killing vote, the thief vote (those who will not work), and the Republican party is afraid to call a spade a spade. They’d rather describe their swell idea without ever hinting that it might be based on something as unPC as....the bible.
Paul, The Apostle to the Gentiles and his 'thorn in the flesh'
So what was this thorn in the flesh that Paul spoke of?
Examine his writings and read between the lines...
Note: He did not marry and called himself a Pharisee.
2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.
Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry.
He seemed to have a problem with women.
1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Who writes this? Certainly not a straight man. After all the first commandment is to be fruitful and multiply and you've got to touch a woman to fulfill that commandment.
He did write extensively about homosexuality (it takes one to know one) in Romans 1 then adds this line immediately after... Romans 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
Sounds like 'thorn in the flesh' is a metaphor for gay sex. And now a quote from the fashion police, and who knows fashion better than gay men?
1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to G-d with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of G-d.
As for nature and long hair the lion has a mane the lioness short hair.
...we have no such custom, nor do the churches of G-d...
The verbal equivalent of a dog chasing its tail.
There you have it... Paul, the gay apostle to the goyim.
You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. What then was the blessing you enjoyed? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. Galatians 4:13-15
in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness-- besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. 2Corinthians 11:23-28
To be fair, adulterers are so common they don’t need an adultery pride parade; it’s already accepted by mainstream society.
He means the only "gay marriage" is the kind the Lord defined, that of being btwn opposite genders, male and female. (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 2:24) Thank God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.