Each week, on TGC's Q&A Podcast, we’re joined by members of the TGC Council and friends who provide biblical perspective on your most pressing questions. Whatever your doubts or questions may be, this is a space where we hope to share biblical insight into life’s questions together. Learn more and subscribe www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/q-a-podcast/
And they have choosen this perfect timing to have a perfect conversation about this perfect topic. Kudos, TGC! you are such a perfect channel to get perfect ideas.
Great interview, Taylor! I love that last point. Even though same-sex marriage is an awkward and controversial subject, it is an opportunity to tell people about the Gospel. Biblical marriage was designed by God to be an illustration of Christ's love for the church.
Dr. Michael Kennedy And the gatling gun was designed to prevent warfare. Just because something was designed for one purpose doesn’t mean it can’t take on a new purpose. Also being gay is just a sin which is just as bad as lying to your mother which you have most likely done. But does that mean we take away your right to be married, no because that would be ridiculous just like saying one type of marriage is awkward because you have only grown up around straight people.
Marriage was around long before Christianity and the actual "Biblical definition" of marriage would be a man married to a woman and another woman and another woman and another woman since polygamy is the most common form of marriage in the Bible.
@Open Minded As usual, you guys love taking one scripture out of context and running with it. It's insane how you guys pick apart scripture, while ignoring others, and thinking it justifies your stance.
@Open Minded Seriously? What stance did you take? Um about the stance where "just because" polygamy is the most common form of marriage in the Bible doesn't mean it's what God wanted because some verse somewhere says "when a man finds a wife" and then you tack on whatever the f8ck you deem fit in order to justify your STANCE. Let me know when you take your head out of your f7cking ass so next time I don't have to explain the obvious.
Wrong. There's a difference between "what people did" (which the bible simply reports accurately) and what God TOLD them to do. By marrying multiple wives, they were in disobedience to the definition of marriage God gave them, which only mentions one husband and one wife (see Genesis 2:24). Later in the New Testament, Jesus himself repeats this definition of marriage by directly quoting that same passage from Genesis (see Matthew 19:5). So Jesus makes it clear that the definition of marriage never changed - it was disobedient humans who corrupted it.
So I do t get it is it ok for this type of marriage I don’t judge any body since Iam not god it not my place to judge the community since we are called to live like Christ. But Iam confused
You are going down a dangerous road when trying to argue Arsenokoites (men who bed with men) from an argument about the Bible being also anti-slavery. First its unnecessary because they are not the same issue and the Bible speaks on both issues. Clearly the Bible gives instructions on slavery in the OT and the New. (Ex 21; Philemon) The Bible NEVER condones homosexuality or gives strict parameters for its use.
False. In the New Testament Jesus himself directly quotes the original definition of marriage given by God in Genesis 2:24 (one man, one woman, for life) and makes it clear that this is the only acceptible context for human sexual behavior. Look it up. Matthew 19:5. Funny how activists never mention that passage, because it's the most powerful passage preventing your interpretation. Hey, if you don't like what the bible says, just reject Christianity as a whole. That would at least be more honest than lying about what the bible says, then pretending to be a follower of it.
@@deanray553 I think you need to re-read what I wrote because you got my position completely wrong. Comparing the activist's argument for homosexuality (which we both agree is un-Biblical, i think) to SLAVERY was the issue I had.
@@deanray553 Thank you. I actually read Matthew the other night and thought to myself "the answer is right here." Here we go again, trying to make the Bible fit our depraved culture rather than being honest about difficult situations.
*SORRY, IT JUST DOESN'T GET ANSWERED....* And if you think there is some kind of an answer, it's all up in the air and you're just left hanging. Any response given, is is a washing over the text, and the person is left to make something up as they go along...more questions than any sort of an answer. Typical!
Barra Adhi Hi barra I was wondering why you think the question was not answered. From my perspective it seemed they gave a lot of evidence to both questions.
@@jamesmarshall8336 Hi, I heard them talking and then give analogies but the question was left unanswered. That's why the lady with the beige jacket asks again, "So, what do you say?" once again the lady in black just tries to throw something together and once again leaves it "up in the air," and so you can't ask again and say, "So, what do you say?" She doesn't know where to look for an answer, she won't be able to support her statements. If the Bible is from God then, why paint a picture that isn't true of how the Bible authors present the perspective? It's like anything but answering the questions. People are trying to please everyone, and so you have to be at odds with the bible.
Barra Adhi Barra Adhi Barra Adhi in reference to the gay marriage thing the lady in black first points out the similarities between the majority of public’s opinion on slavery in the past and gay marriage in the present. She said that Christians were against both against the public’s opinion. She then goes on to say that in order to accept gay marriage you have to ignore many scriptures within the Bible. She later goes on to say that God created marriage to reflect gods love for the church. When god defines marriage he defines it between a man and women. It is clear that god intended for marriage to be between man and women. Therefore it is wrong for imperfect humans to go against gods intentions for us. What do you think? I’m going to sleep but I will respond to any replies in the morning 👍. Thank your for being respectful so far with me 😁.
@@jamesmarshall8336 Thanks. My point in this is that people can speculate on what GOD thinks and what Jesus thinks, and the main reason is because your trying to loosely create laws governed by the biographers of NT, MMLJP and also the biographers of the OT books (the same way that Jesus never saw or read the writings of the "authors" of the NT, as they were written after his life on earth...and so this is where I think the confusion is, in now calling it the "Word of GOD" (people are now giving commentary on biographers accounts of a man that they had not seen, but that is not my area of my contention...my contention is one stage earlier). I believe Jesus DID have a physical book in his lifetime, clearly we can both agree it couldn't have been the NT, for the earlier reasons of it being written after the time of Jesus. Now this book that Jesus was teaching from is mentioned in Mark 1:14-22, the thing that is being referred to is the "Euangelion" (this is in the Greek), it is also a noun. However, when it is translated into English "Euangelion" is changed to "good news/gospel" now this change also changes it to a verb. Now as you read from 14-22 it is very clear that the narrative shows that Jesus is using something to govern his companions and the community with, and whenever people try to challenge Jesus, he responds with this Euangelion and so the questioners are able to recognise the authority of both Jesus and the Euangelion. If that Euangelion was here then it would have been first person perspective, GOD speaking. It would be nothing like the construct of the NT biographically structured, third person perspective. I wanted to differentiate between the two women speaking (subjectivity), the NT being quoted (commentary on a biographical account of an unknown source), and deriving rulings from biographers narratives. Now that same of the Euangelion claim, I'm also saying similar of the OT, that it too is biography that Moses never saw or read, in particular the first 5 books of OT. However, the same way the narrative about Jesus having the Euangelion/Injeel, and it being a physical book that Jesus is governing by, the OT, in Deutronomy (Just before Moses dies), he calls the elders together and says, "I leave with you the" At-Tawrat" to govern by." Since Deutronomy is talking about the incident, it logically follows, that Deutronomy cannot be the Tawrat that Deutronomy is writing about (self evidently, all 5 books and subsequent others are all biographies). An interesting little article for you to have a look at, to help appreciate the point. I think a really important point, and if salvation, life after this life depends upon it then I think spending a short time in investigating this point I'm raising should be given some importance. 📜 *FREE!!! - 40 page, PDF@scribd:* "JESUS & THE INJEEL" by John Fontain... www.scribd.com/document/372311119/Jesus-the-Injeel-John-Fontain By the way, this is not to offend in any way, but maybe to draw your attention to something you might have overlooked. You see I also believe in GOD. I believe GOD should be separate from the whole, rest of GOD'S CREATION, that He should be worshipped alone and that whenever you ask assistance it should be from GOD alone. No conflation with Jesus and appreciating Jesus role to bring a consistent message to his community and subsequent followers (and those messages of the Tawrat and Euangelion would have been consistent in their theme of asking people to worship GOD alone and asking assistance from GOD alone). And to clarify the point of At-Tawrat is NOT the general term that is used as Torah is just a title given to the first 5 books of OT (clearly they are biographies that Moses never saw/read). Feel free to leave a comment if you think need be. All the best in the meanwhile.
@@barraadhi4802 Hey Barra, Im new to this conversation. I would say that the Euangelion mentioned 70+ times in the new testament was simply the message Jesus taught but not a physical book. My reason for that belief is that there is evidence that Jesus could read and write, but no evidence (in the OT or NT) that I have seen that supports that He had a book he used to teach from. Jesus taught the good news. Admit your sins to God, ask for forgiveness, repent/turn away from your disobedience, and believe that God will forgive you. I just realized something though through your comment. The Gospel of Jesus that we teach is God created everything including humans, we disobeyed/sinned against God breaking that relationship, Jesus came lived a perfect life, died as a sacrifice for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day. This is my new realization: The above mentioned is what I would call the Good news, yet Jesus was preaching the Good news and He hadn't finished His ministry yet. Id love to here more from your view on that. What is the good news? What good news did Jesus teach? Now I have questions to think about too. Hope everyone is staying safe during this time.
Haha.. good try, guys! LET’S ALWAYS REMEMBER TO CELEBRATE THAT THE RAINBOW🌈 IS A SYMBOL OF GODS PROMISE! EVERY DAY, OF EVERY WEEK, OF EVERY MONTH, OF EVERY YEAR, TO ETERNITY!!🙏🏾 GENESIS 9:13-17 - - I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds I will see it and remember, the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth. God said to Noah, “ this is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth. ***HOMOSEXUALS IN THE LIVING BIBLE - homosexuality is clinical and sodomite is biblical. QUOTED FROM THE LIVING BIBLE FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED ABOUT GODS LAWS REGARDING HOMOSEXUALITY, GAYS, TRANSGENDERS, PLUS👇🏽 JESUS SAID IN MATTHEW 19:4 “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female…….” GENESIS 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “ be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it,………” GENESIS 2:24 A man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his WIFE; and they shall become one flesh. Matthew 19:5 Jesus said: a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his WIFE, and the two shall become one flesh. MARK 10:8 And the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two but one flesh. EPHESIANS 5:31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his WIFE,and the two shall become one flesh. DEUTERONOMY 22:5 A woman must not wear mans clothing or a man wear women’s clothing, for The Lord your God detests anyone who does this LEVITICUS 18:22 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done what is detestable; they must be put to death; Their blood will be on their own hands. THEN it goes right into not having sex with an animal ( bestiality ) in verse 23. God lists these together… yikes! LEVITICUS 20:13 If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed a detestable act. They must be put to death; their death is their own fault. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 Or do you not know that wrong-doers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN, ( this includes women with women),nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 TIMOTHY1:10 The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. (This 👆🏽Explains that Gods law is meant for the unholy….the sexually immoral and homosexuals …. Etc.) It is crystal clear that God disapproves of gay sex. BUT, many will go to the ends of the earth to protect their sinful life styles and make up a God that fits their sin. ROMANS 1:26-27 IS QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THE PROHIBITION OF SAME SEX ACTIVITY FOR MEN AND WOMAN. “ God handed them over to disgraceful passions. (Debased mind)Their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. The men in the same way also left natural relations with women and were inflamed in their lust for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the appropriate penalty of their error. God delivered them over to a reprobate mind they are filled with all unrighteousness, evil, greed and wickedness…. Etc… BIBLICAL HOMOSEXUALITY: AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE IT IS CLASSIFIED AS A SIN AND AT THE END OF THE BIBLE IT IS STILL CLASSIFIED AS A SIN. Sodom and Gomorrah - Genesis 19 - Were two legendary biblical cities destroyed by God for their wickedness and sexual perversion that God burnt to a crisp for an example and warning to live by. JESUS said most of humanity is going to hell in MATTHEW 7:13-14 why?👇🏽 He said you MUST be born again-John 3:3, Repent Luke 13:3, AND again in Luke 13:5, John 14:23 JESUS SAID “ Those who love me will obey My teachings.” ( but most will choose their sinful lifestyles instead of truth) SO, THERE IS NO CASTING STONES! JUST THE WORDS OF THE TRUE GOD, JESUS CHRIST IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT. *The Bible interferes with sexual freedom and that’s why it’s denied by the sinner because he loves his/her sin more. God has prepared a place for the unforgiven sinner.🔥 He doesn’t want you to go there, He loves you so much, He wants you to change. Please, read your Bible. God bless🙏🏾
Gay marriage is such a clumsy term; it implies that Christians are against only a man marrying a man. Christians are against marriages being defined exclusively by the sexuality movement (or 'Sexuality Marriages'), as each sexuality would define marriage differently.
@@Open-6 Even if it is, It’s a weak argument on analogy because it assumes that supporting chattel race based slavery (which cause this is an Anglo-centric English speaking channel, that is likely what 99% of viewers think of when referring to “slavery”) has been a historically orthodox position of most Christians, like not supporting same sex relationships. Which is just not the case historically. If anything it implies that the Confederates that used the Bible to defend chattel slavery had the more historically consistent interpretation. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, reform slavery, or be skeptical of slavery. Using the Bible to justify same-sex relationships is rather recent because for millennia same sex relationships were not tolerated. We have Christians even in the 1st being skeptical of slavery and some denominations outright discouraged its practice (I have to do more research and find those denominations again though). We can’t really say the same for same sex marriages even though people still slept with people of the same sex even back then.
If you oppose my rights(i.e. civil marriage) I oppose your rights(i.e. religion, life). Slavery and marriage equality are two different issues, but religious apologetics in opposition to marriage equality/homosexuality is pure evil.
"Gloss over an awful lot of awkward passages"!? "Jettison authority of scripture"!? Ironically, they were saying these exact same words when it came to opposing slay-very! We do not practice marriage like in the Bible. It was a business decision between a man and a girl's father (and I mean GIRL, not woman). The Bible condones multiple wives and concubines (secs slaivs). The Bible is supportive of same-secs marriage. It says "it is not good for the human being to be alone", not "is it not good for straight people, good for gays". It says nothing against two men or two women having a loving intimate relationship. In fact, love fulfils ALL God's commands. Rom 13.9 says "love your neighbour" is enough, not "love your neighbour and no gay secs". So stop twisting the Bible the justify disgraceful homofobia. "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" Rom 2.24.
She basically just said "you need to cherry pick" to endorse slavery. Christians that use the Bible to explain why slavery is wrong think that Christians that use the Bible to justify slavery are interpreting the book wrong. The book as a whole is not pro-slavery or anti-slavery, it has elements of both. If two groups that both consider themselves to be true Christians consider the opposing group to be non-Christians, but both groups are using the Bible to justify their beliefs then who determines who the "real Christians" are. If both groups use info from the same book, but both perspectives aren't considered "true" then the book contradicts its self and a literal interpretation is untrustworthy. because if the book contradicts itself once then who is to say other statements in the book are also untrue.
I'm a Christian, and I'm against gay marriage, but I also recognize the reality that the Bible does not condemn slavery. Christians throughout antiquity owned slaves. This was never condemned.
@@Moniquesworld I don't know about "demonic"... I think you can say it's "incorrect" or "not ideal," but I think "demonic" is a bit harsh considering that the vast majority of African missionaries in the 19th century believed in some form of it. Also, I don't know why you think the "first humans were black"... I don't believe that. There's no evidence for that.
@@Moniquesworld So every time someone believes a scientific fact that ends up being wrong it means they believed something demonic? That's a strange way to think. Also, the first humans could not have been black because they had to carry all of humanity's DNA (which obviously includes Whites and Asians too). Furthermore, the Garden of Eden was not in Africa. This is basic Genesis geography.
@@christiantalour7871 Your reason for why the first humans could not have been black does not make sense. "Also, the first humans could not have been black because they had to carry all of humanity's DNA (which obviously includes Whites and Asians too)" If you use that logic than the first human could not have been white or asian either for the same reason.
Who compares these apples to oranges. The bible condemns homosexuality and condones slavery so either way it doesn't really have any footing to dictate morality.
@@therealmrfishpaste Ah yes, the ol' "hit 'em with the strawman" attack. Fact of the matter is that there are a lot of terrible working conditions around the world, but while that is an important discussion to be had, this is not what is being discussed now. The fact of the matter is though, the bible specifically instructs on how to buy, sell, trade, beat, and take slaves and therefore lacks the moral authority on which we should judge homosexuality.
@@LordNinja109 That is what is being discussed now, because large parts of our everyday lives are inextricably bound up with the 'terrible working conditions' of others (much like slavery was inextricably bound up in virtually all of life in the Ancient Near East) and that should give us some pause for thought before making sweeping generalisations about how economic dilemmas of the past should or should not have been dealt with....you saying 'the Bible condones slavery as evidenced by its laws regulating it and therefore can't be trusted to give moral advice on anything else, is equivalent to me saying "Lucas Elder condones wage slavery as evidenced through his continued use of the fruits of its labour, and therefore cannot be trusted to give moral advice on anything else"
Why not just not call him your brother? Why prefix it? That in a nutshell is the problem with lggbtism, it reduces people to some expression of attraction.
“The Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong, slavery. What are the odds that it got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong as well? 100%!” -Dan Savage
Nowhere does the bible "get slavery wrong." In the Old Testament, the bible does not "advocate" slavery. It simply accepts it as a deeply embedded part of ALL human societies at the time. Then it adds a few significant restrictions to it. Compare it to any set of laws frim that era that archeologists have found (for example, the Law of Hammarabi). Same basic thing, except Moses version is less harsh. Why doesn't the Old Testament CONDEMN slavery? Because that's not its purpose. The purpose of the Law of Moses was not to create a "perfect society" or "eliminate evil." It was to prove to the Jews that no matter which set of rules God gave them (even a set that was barely much different from the surrounding nations!) they would not be able to obey it without hypocrisy. It perfectly succeeded in this purpose. The New Testament, on the other hand, DOES condemn slavery. Not by attempting to dictate new laws for all of society, but by setting personal standards for Christians which make slavery totally incompatible with obedience. This is most clear in Philemon (as these ladies point out). The New Testament is not a revolutionary POLITICAL TREATISE. At no point does it ever attempt to dictate any change to any existing political system. Judging it as if it's a political treatise is basically a straw man. Why does the bible make no attempt to reform society? Because any such attempt is futile. Society is evil because INDIVIDUALS are evil. The only solution is to supernaturally transform the hearts of individuals - one at a time. That's the purpose of the book. After fully digesting the teachings if the New Testament, any sincere follower of Jesus knows clearly that slavery is wrong. That doesn't prevent insincere hypocrites from twisting those teachings to support their wickedness.
The Bible doesn't promote slavery. Indentured servants and slavery was common during this time in history. Usually when someone owed a debt, instead of prison, many would be a slave to pay off their debts. Paul says slaves should obey masters in one passage and another passage says if you can gain your freedom, do it. He knows that many slaves during this time could be hurt if they disobeyed in any way so it was a way to protect them and hopefully advance in some ways. Joseph in Genesis was sold into slavery and because he was so good at his job, he was promoted. Some slaves gained their freedom by working hard, like Joseph. Just because an evil practice was in a culture it doesn't mean the Bible approved of it anymore than you could say the Bible approves of sex selection abortions.
Easiest moral question yet it took humanity millennia to abolish its practice (which is still ongoing today), let alone that Christians made up a significant portion of the abolishers.
Each week, on TGC's Q&A Podcast, we’re joined by members of the TGC Council and friends who provide biblical perspective on your most pressing questions. Whatever your doubts or questions may be, this is a space where we hope to share biblical insight into life’s questions together. Learn more and subscribe www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/q-a-podcast/
And they have choosen this perfect timing to have a perfect conversation about this perfect topic. Kudos, TGC! you are such a perfect channel to get perfect ideas.
Great interview, Taylor! I love that last point. Even though same-sex marriage is an awkward and controversial subject, it is an opportunity to tell people about the Gospel. Biblical marriage was designed by God to be an illustration of Christ's love for the church.
Dr. Michael Kennedy And the gatling gun was designed to prevent warfare. Just because something was designed for one purpose doesn’t mean it can’t take on a new purpose. Also being gay is just a sin which is just as bad as lying to your mother which you have most likely done. But does that mean we take away your right to be married, no because that would be ridiculous just like saying one type of marriage is awkward because you have only grown up around straight people.
Marriage was around long before Christianity and the actual "Biblical definition" of marriage would be a man married to a woman and another woman and another woman and another woman since polygamy is the most common form of marriage in the Bible.
@Open Minded As usual, you guys love taking one scripture out of context and running with it. It's insane how you guys pick apart scripture, while ignoring others, and thinking it justifies your stance.
@Open Minded Seriously? What stance did you take? Um about the stance where "just because" polygamy is the most common form of marriage in the Bible doesn't mean it's what God wanted because some verse somewhere says "when a man finds a wife" and then you tack on whatever the f8ck you deem fit in order to justify your STANCE.
Let me know when you take your head out of your f7cking ass so next time I don't have to explain the obvious.
Wrong.
There's a difference between "what people did" (which the bible simply reports accurately) and what God TOLD them to do.
By marrying multiple wives, they were in disobedience to the definition of marriage God gave them, which only mentions one husband and one wife (see Genesis 2:24).
Later in the New Testament, Jesus himself repeats this definition of marriage by directly quoting that same passage from Genesis (see Matthew 19:5). So Jesus makes it clear that the definition of marriage never changed - it was disobedient humans who corrupted it.
Lovely!
So I do t get it is it ok for this type of marriage I don’t judge any body since Iam not god it not my place to judge the community since we are called to live like Christ. But Iam confused
good news for the hearer too!
You are going down a dangerous road when trying to argue Arsenokoites (men who bed with men) from an argument about the Bible being also anti-slavery. First its unnecessary because they are not the same issue and the Bible speaks on both issues. Clearly the Bible gives instructions on slavery in the OT and the New. (Ex 21; Philemon) The Bible NEVER condones homosexuality or gives strict parameters for its use.
False. In the New Testament Jesus himself directly quotes the original definition of marriage given by God in Genesis 2:24 (one man, one woman, for life) and makes it clear that this is the only acceptible context for human sexual behavior. Look it up. Matthew 19:5.
Funny how activists never mention that passage, because it's the most powerful passage preventing your interpretation.
Hey, if you don't like what the bible says, just reject Christianity as a whole. That would at least be more honest than lying about what the bible says, then pretending to be a follower of it.
@@deanray553 I think you need to re-read what I wrote because you got my position completely wrong. Comparing the activist's argument for homosexuality (which we both agree is un-Biblical, i think) to SLAVERY was the issue I had.
@@deanray553 Thank you. I actually read Matthew the other night and thought to myself "the answer is right here."
Here we go again, trying to make the Bible fit our depraved culture rather than being honest about difficult situations.
Is supporting abortion like supporting slavery?
*SORRY, IT JUST DOESN'T GET ANSWERED....*
And if you think there is some kind of an answer, it's all up in the air and you're just left hanging.
Any response given, is is a washing over the text, and the person is left to make something up as they go along...more questions than any sort of an answer. Typical!
Barra Adhi Hi barra I was wondering why you think the question was not answered. From my perspective it seemed they gave a lot of evidence to both questions.
@@jamesmarshall8336 Hi, I heard them talking and then give analogies but the question was left unanswered. That's why the lady with the beige jacket asks again, "So, what do you say?" once again the lady in black just tries to throw something together and once again leaves it "up in the air," and so you can't ask again and say, "So, what do you say?"
She doesn't know where to look for an answer, she won't be able to support her statements.
If the Bible is from God then, why paint a picture that isn't true of how the Bible authors present the perspective? It's like anything but answering the questions. People are trying to please everyone, and so you have to be at odds with the bible.
Barra Adhi Barra Adhi Barra Adhi in reference to the gay marriage thing the lady in black first points out the similarities between the majority of public’s opinion on slavery in the past and gay marriage in the present. She said that Christians were against both against the public’s opinion. She then goes on to say that in order to accept gay marriage you have to ignore many scriptures within the Bible. She later goes on to say that God created marriage to reflect gods love for the church. When god defines marriage he defines it between a man and women. It is clear that god intended for marriage to be between man and women. Therefore it is wrong for imperfect humans to go against gods intentions for us. What do you think? I’m going to sleep but I will respond to any replies in the morning 👍. Thank your for being respectful so far with me 😁.
@@jamesmarshall8336 Thanks. My point in this is that people can speculate on what GOD thinks and what Jesus thinks, and the main reason is because your trying to loosely create laws governed by the biographers of NT, MMLJP and also the biographers of the OT books (the same way that Jesus never saw or read the writings of the "authors" of the NT, as they were written after his life on earth...and so this is where I think the confusion is, in now calling it the "Word of GOD" (people are now giving commentary on biographers accounts of a man that they had not seen, but that is not my area of my contention...my contention is one stage earlier).
I believe Jesus DID have a physical book in his lifetime, clearly we can both agree it couldn't have been the NT, for the earlier reasons of it being written after the time of Jesus. Now this book that Jesus was teaching from is mentioned in Mark 1:14-22, the thing that is being referred to is the "Euangelion" (this is in the Greek), it is also a noun. However, when it is translated into English "Euangelion" is changed to "good news/gospel" now this change also changes it to a verb. Now as you read from 14-22 it is very clear that the narrative shows that Jesus is using something to govern his companions and the community with, and whenever people try to challenge Jesus, he responds with this Euangelion and so the questioners are able to recognise the authority of both Jesus and the Euangelion.
If that Euangelion was here then it would have been first person perspective, GOD speaking. It would be nothing like the construct of the NT biographically structured, third person perspective.
I wanted to differentiate between the two women speaking (subjectivity), the NT being quoted (commentary on a biographical account of an unknown source), and deriving rulings from biographers narratives.
Now that same of the Euangelion claim, I'm also saying similar of the OT, that it too is biography that Moses never saw or read, in particular the first 5 books of OT. However, the same way the narrative about Jesus having the Euangelion/Injeel, and it being a physical book that Jesus is governing by, the OT, in Deutronomy (Just before Moses dies), he calls the elders together and says, "I leave with you the" At-Tawrat" to govern by." Since Deutronomy is talking about the incident, it logically follows, that Deutronomy cannot be the Tawrat that Deutronomy is writing about (self evidently, all 5 books and subsequent others are all biographies).
An interesting little article for you to have a look at, to help appreciate the point.
I think a really important point, and if salvation, life after this life depends upon it then I think spending a short time in investigating this point I'm raising should be given some importance.
📜 *FREE!!! - 40 page, PDF@scribd:* "JESUS & THE INJEEL" by John Fontain... www.scribd.com/document/372311119/Jesus-the-Injeel-John-Fontain
By the way, this is not to offend in any way, but maybe to draw your attention to something you might have overlooked.
You see I also believe in GOD. I believe GOD should be separate from the whole, rest of GOD'S CREATION, that He should be worshipped alone and that whenever you ask assistance it should be from GOD alone. No conflation with Jesus and appreciating Jesus role to bring a consistent message to his community and subsequent followers (and those messages of the Tawrat and Euangelion would have been consistent in their theme of asking people to worship GOD alone and asking assistance from GOD alone).
And to clarify the point of At-Tawrat is NOT the general term that is used as Torah is just a title given to the first 5 books of OT (clearly they are biographies that Moses never saw/read).
Feel free to leave a comment if you think need be.
All the best in the meanwhile.
@@barraadhi4802 Hey Barra, Im new to this conversation. I would say that the Euangelion mentioned 70+ times in the new testament was simply the message Jesus taught but not a physical book. My reason for that belief is that there is evidence that Jesus could read and write, but no evidence (in the OT or NT) that I have seen that supports that He had a book he used to teach from.
Jesus taught the good news. Admit your sins to God, ask for forgiveness, repent/turn away from your disobedience, and believe that God will forgive you.
I just realized something though through your comment. The Gospel of Jesus that we teach is God created everything including humans, we disobeyed/sinned against God breaking that relationship, Jesus came lived a perfect life, died as a sacrifice for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day.
This is my new realization: The above mentioned is what I would call the Good news, yet Jesus was preaching the Good news and He hadn't finished His ministry yet.
Id love to here more from your view on that. What is the good news? What good news did Jesus teach? Now I have questions to think about too.
Hope everyone is staying safe during this time.
Haha.. good try, guys!
LET’S ALWAYS REMEMBER TO CELEBRATE THAT THE RAINBOW🌈 IS A SYMBOL OF GODS PROMISE! EVERY DAY, OF EVERY WEEK, OF EVERY MONTH, OF EVERY YEAR, TO ETERNITY!!🙏🏾
GENESIS 9:13-17 - - I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds I will see it and remember, the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth. God said to Noah, “ this is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.
***HOMOSEXUALS IN THE LIVING BIBLE -
homosexuality is clinical and sodomite is biblical.
QUOTED FROM THE LIVING BIBLE FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED ABOUT GODS LAWS REGARDING HOMOSEXUALITY, GAYS, TRANSGENDERS, PLUS👇🏽
JESUS SAID IN MATTHEW 19:4 “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female…….”
GENESIS 1:28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “ be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it,………”
GENESIS 2:24
A man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his WIFE; and they shall become one flesh.
Matthew 19:5
Jesus said: a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his WIFE, and the two shall become one flesh.
MARK 10:8
And the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two but one flesh.
EPHESIANS 5:31
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his WIFE,and the two shall become one flesh.
DEUTERONOMY 22:5
A woman must not wear mans clothing or a man wear women’s clothing, for The Lord your God detests anyone who does this
LEVITICUS 18:22
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done what is detestable; they must be put to death; Their blood will be on their own hands. THEN it goes right into not having sex with an animal ( bestiality ) in verse 23.
God lists these together… yikes!
LEVITICUS 20:13
If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed a detestable act. They must be put to death; their death is their own fault.
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10
Or do you not know that wrong-doers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN, ( this includes women with women),nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 TIMOTHY1:10
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.
(This 👆🏽Explains that Gods law is meant for the unholy….the sexually immoral and homosexuals …. Etc.)
It is crystal clear that God disapproves of gay sex. BUT, many will go to the ends of the earth to protect their sinful life styles and make up a God that fits their sin.
ROMANS 1:26-27
IS QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THE PROHIBITION OF SAME SEX ACTIVITY FOR MEN AND WOMAN.
“ God handed them over to disgraceful passions. (Debased mind)Their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. The men in the same way also left natural relations with women and were inflamed in their lust for one another.
Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the appropriate penalty of their error. God delivered them over to a reprobate mind they are filled with all unrighteousness, evil, greed and wickedness…. Etc…
BIBLICAL HOMOSEXUALITY: AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE IT IS CLASSIFIED AS A SIN AND AT THE END OF THE BIBLE IT IS STILL CLASSIFIED AS A SIN.
Sodom and Gomorrah - Genesis 19 -
Were two legendary biblical cities destroyed by God for their wickedness and sexual perversion that God burnt to a crisp for an example and warning to live by.
JESUS said most of humanity is going to hell in MATTHEW 7:13-14 why?👇🏽
He said you MUST be born again-John 3:3, Repent Luke 13:3, AND again in Luke 13:5, John 14:23 JESUS SAID “ Those who love me will obey My teachings.”
( but most will choose their sinful lifestyles instead of truth)
SO, THERE IS NO CASTING STONES! JUST THE WORDS OF THE TRUE GOD, JESUS CHRIST IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT.
*The Bible interferes with sexual freedom and that’s why it’s denied by the sinner because he loves his/her sin more. God has prepared a place for the unforgiven sinner.🔥 He doesn’t want you to go there, He loves you so much, He wants you to change.
Please, read your Bible. God bless🙏🏾
Gay marriage is such a clumsy term; it implies that Christians are against only a man marrying a man. Christians are against marriages being defined exclusively by the sexuality movement (or 'Sexuality Marriages'), as each sexuality would define marriage differently.
If I want to listen or read about slavery, I'll go to the highest authority (next to God) - Thomas Sowell.
You are comparing gay marriage to slavery? 🤨
Like... * stares in blackness! * who came up with this question?!
Right. They cannot be talking about chattel slavery which our people suffer from.
others do, this video starts with a quote if you remember
@@michaelg4919 no it’s not. The video starts with a question
@@Open-6 Even if it is, It’s a weak argument on analogy because it assumes that supporting chattel race based slavery (which cause this is an Anglo-centric English speaking channel, that is likely what 99% of viewers think of when referring to “slavery”) has been a historically orthodox position of most Christians, like not supporting same sex relationships. Which is just not the case historically. If anything it implies that the Confederates that used the Bible to defend chattel slavery had the more historically consistent interpretation. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, reform slavery, or be skeptical of slavery. Using the Bible to justify same-sex relationships is rather recent because for millennia same sex relationships were not tolerated. We have Christians even in the 1st being skeptical of slavery and some denominations outright discouraged its practice (I have to do more research and find those denominations again though). We can’t really say the same for same sex marriages even though people still slept with people of the same sex even back then.
No
Nonsense question and answers
How so?
@@johnmarimarcelo
He won’t give you an answer because what he said is utter nonsense.
💛
If you oppose my rights(i.e. civil marriage) I oppose your rights(i.e. religion, life). Slavery and marriage equality are two different issues, but religious apologetics in opposition to marriage equality/homosexuality is pure evil.
LOL Yeah, sure, you betcha, let's try anything to justify our deviance.
God has allowed even his own people to be enslaved, however he has never put a same sex couple together nor would he.
"Gloss over an awful lot of awkward passages"!? "Jettison authority of scripture"!?
Ironically, they were saying these exact same words when it came to opposing slay-very!
We do not practice marriage like in the Bible. It was a business decision between a man and a girl's father (and I mean GIRL, not woman). The Bible condones multiple wives and concubines (secs slaivs).
The Bible is supportive of same-secs marriage. It says "it is not good for the human being to be alone", not "is it not good for straight people, good for gays". It says nothing against two
men or two women having a loving intimate relationship. In fact, love fulfils ALL God's commands. Rom 13.9 says "love your neighbour" is enough, not "love your neighbour and no gay secs".
So stop twisting the Bible the justify disgraceful homofobia. "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" Rom 2.24.
No.
She basically just said "you need to cherry pick" to endorse slavery.
Christians that use the Bible to explain why slavery is wrong think that Christians that use the Bible to justify slavery are interpreting the book wrong. The book as a whole is not pro-slavery or anti-slavery, it has elements of both. If two groups that both consider themselves to be true Christians consider the opposing group to be non-Christians, but both groups are using the Bible to justify their beliefs then who determines who the "real Christians" are. If both groups use info from the same book, but both perspectives aren't considered "true" then the book contradicts its self and a literal interpretation is untrustworthy. because if the book contradicts itself once then who is to say other statements in the book are also untrue.
I'm a Christian, and I'm against gay marriage, but I also recognize the reality that the Bible does not condemn slavery. Christians throughout antiquity owned slaves. This was never condemned.
🗿 But have you ever used the f word?
@@Moniquesworld I don't know about "demonic"... I think you can say it's "incorrect" or "not ideal," but I think "demonic" is a bit harsh considering that the vast majority of African missionaries in the 19th century believed in some form of it. Also, I don't know why you think the "first humans were black"... I don't believe that. There's no evidence for that.
@@Moniquesworld So every time someone believes a scientific fact that ends up being wrong it means they believed something demonic? That's a strange way to think. Also, the first humans could not have been black because they had to carry all of humanity's DNA (which obviously includes Whites and Asians too). Furthermore, the Garden of Eden was not in Africa. This is basic Genesis geography.
@@christiantalour7871 There is all the evidence that the first humans were black.
@@christiantalour7871 Your reason for why the first humans could not have been black does not make sense.
"Also, the first humans could not have been black because they had to carry all of humanity's DNA (which obviously includes Whites and Asians too)"
If you use that logic than the first human could not have been white or asian either for the same reason.
Who compares these apples to oranges. The bible condemns homosexuality and condones slavery so either way it doesn't really have any footing to dictate morality.
imbecilic comment
@@UncleKlausSchwab I respectfully disagree
Did you type that on your iPhone...do you, too, condone slavery...
@@therealmrfishpaste Ah yes, the ol' "hit 'em with the strawman" attack. Fact of the matter is that there are a lot of terrible working conditions around the world, but while that is an important discussion to be had, this is not what is being discussed now. The fact of the matter is though, the bible specifically instructs on how to buy, sell, trade, beat, and take slaves and therefore lacks the moral authority on which we should judge homosexuality.
@@LordNinja109 That is what is being discussed now, because large parts of our everyday lives are inextricably bound up with the 'terrible working conditions' of others (much like slavery was inextricably bound up in virtually all of life in the Ancient Near East) and that should give us some pause for thought before making sweeping generalisations about how economic dilemmas of the past should or should not have been dealt with....you saying 'the Bible condones slavery as evidenced by its laws regulating it and therefore can't be trusted to give moral advice on anything else, is equivalent to me saying "Lucas Elder condones wage slavery as evidenced through his continued use of the fruits of its labour, and therefore cannot be trusted to give moral advice on anything else"
*My homosexual brother with a stable life and is all about God:*
🗿
@wata melone wtf does rape have to do with ANYTHING I just said, and wdym by "sin" 🤔
@Xan Dam Don't feel like it, not gonna, not Christian, don't care 😩👉👈
Why not just not call him your brother? Why prefix it? That in a nutshell is the problem with lggbtism, it reduces people to some expression of attraction.
@@UncleKlausSchwab I called him my brother though, lmfao
“The Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong, slavery. What are the odds that it got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong as well? 100%!”
-Dan Savage
Nowhere does the bible "get slavery wrong."
In the Old Testament, the bible does not "advocate" slavery. It simply accepts it as a deeply embedded part of ALL human societies at the time. Then it adds a few significant restrictions to it. Compare it to any set of laws frim that era that archeologists have found (for example, the Law of Hammarabi). Same basic thing, except Moses version is less harsh.
Why doesn't the Old Testament CONDEMN slavery? Because that's not its purpose. The purpose of the Law of Moses was not to create a "perfect society" or "eliminate evil." It was to prove to the Jews that no matter which set of rules God gave them (even a set that was barely much different from the surrounding nations!) they would not be able to obey it without hypocrisy. It perfectly succeeded in this purpose.
The New Testament, on the other hand, DOES condemn slavery. Not by attempting to dictate new laws for all of society, but by setting personal standards for Christians which make slavery totally incompatible with obedience. This is most clear in Philemon (as these ladies point out).
The New Testament is not a revolutionary POLITICAL TREATISE. At no point does it ever attempt to dictate any change to any existing political system. Judging it as if it's a political treatise is basically a straw man.
Why does the bible make no attempt to reform society? Because any such attempt is futile. Society is evil because INDIVIDUALS are evil. The only solution is to supernaturally transform the hearts of individuals - one at a time. That's the purpose of the book.
After fully digesting the teachings if the New Testament, any sincere follower of Jesus knows clearly that slavery is wrong.
That doesn't prevent insincere hypocrites from twisting those teachings to support their wickedness.
The Bible doesn't promote slavery. Indentured servants and slavery was common during this time in history. Usually when someone owed a debt, instead of prison, many would be a slave to pay off their debts. Paul says slaves should obey masters in one passage and another passage says if you can gain your freedom, do it. He knows that many slaves during this time could be hurt if they disobeyed in any way so it was a way to protect them and hopefully advance in some ways. Joseph in Genesis was sold into slavery and because he was so good at his job, he was promoted. Some slaves gained their freedom by working hard, like Joseph. Just because an evil practice was in a culture it doesn't mean the Bible approved of it anymore than you could say the Bible approves of sex selection abortions.
Easiest moral question yet it took humanity millennia to abolish its practice (which is still ongoing today), let alone that Christians made up a significant portion of the abolishers.