Has “Homosexual” always been in the Bible?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- A great article came out recently asking whether the word 'homosexual' has actually always been in our Bibles. [link here] www.forgeonlin...
I think it may be a little more complicated though...
01:08 - Translation Issues
05:36 - Ancient Meanings
07:30 - Narrative Trajectory
The word "homosexual" doesn't enter the conversation until the 19th century in Germany and isn't used regularly until the 20th century in English. Before that, homosexuality wasn't considered part of someone's identity simply, a thing one might do. Which is why it doesn't enter the translations until around that time. Instead "boy molester" was probably considered a more pressing "sin" culturally to fit the term arsenekotais which is literally "man-bed". Naomi Klein recently stepped into a strangely similar debate about Victorian-era justice. She identified rulings where it appeared that homosexual men had been put to death, but upon further research by others, it appears that what we are reading as homosexual was probably understood to mean boy-molesting in a culture where homosexual identity was not properly recognized. It also appears these men were not actually executed. All that to say that for a long period "boy-molester" was probably the normative understanding of words we would now translate homosexual.
However, that does not mean that would have been the normative understanding in the ancient world.
The Levitical passages are definitely not talking about "boy-molesters" because the Hebrew is more definitively dealing with two "men". I find it much more likely that Leviticus was concerned with preserving the active male role in sex in a patriarchal society. So it's likely that the dominant cultural NT translation was simply read back onto the Hebrew during the periods cited in the article.
Paul, on the other hand, had language that would have directly described pederasty available to him and so his use of arsenekotais is difficult. My guess is that he is using the word to combine the Grecko-Roman practises around him and the Levitical framework he was undoubtedly shaped by, to refer to all of the homosexuality activity he imagined, which would have been dominated by pederasty, but perhaps not alone.
So, what do we do if Leviticus is concerned with preserving the active male role in sex and Paul is condemning all homosexual activity he observes in his culture?
Well, rather than trying to fit biblical texts into modern constructs another approach is to understand the culturally bound interpretations of specific actions present in the text but at the same time look to the overarching trajectory that defines the biblical narrative to guide us as we continue to read Scripture in an evolving cultural landscape. I would argue that this narrative is one that leads to more openness, more inclusion and more understanding of the ways culture impacts and shapes us, including our sexuality.
In other words, this article probably has more to say about translation in the 1600-1900 era than it does about ancient meanings and yet, this in itself, is a good reminder that we can't outsource meaning to a translator. We all have to internalize the story of Jesus and then determine how best to live that ethic as we face new moments and constructs.
Christianity doesn't worship a fixed textual tradition it worships a living word, the Christ, who still guides us to love and include and expand our horizons today.
2 Timothy 4:3, NLT: "For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear."
Guess what,God himself love same sex couples love.But you stupid homophobic idiots will say it's a sin.As a heterosexual i support same sex love
@@JohnPeter-wk8sz No he doesnt
This is horrible interpretation of scripture.
@@KarenWasherGrudzien what’s sad is we say God is all knowing so he knew that millions of people would be gay but your telling me God would know people would be gay and damn them to hell Bc of who they are attracted to when he could just remove the desire … So basically you’re telling me God is evil….. Bc that’s literally torture
@@devinspears3004 That is a really good point.
As a lesbian Christian idk why I find it so heartbreaking because I keep telling myself that I don’t need to date anyone to be happy all I need is Jesus but when I hear about how homosexuality is a sin and why it’s considered a sin I break down
Edit: I’m bi
I hope you know you are loved first, always, and above all else.
Wow Ive been feeling almost the same way..it makes me feel torn sometimes..bc I have tried to make myself straight for years in hopes of that bringing me to heaven but it's just not gonna happen. I still want to have a relationship with God and have been trying to figure out how to do that while also living a happy life. I really wish the bible addressed homosexuality as we know it today. And when I think about, I ask myself, "would God want me to spend the rest of my life alone and miserable?" Because it felt like that was the only option other than forcing myself to be with a man (which I'm not gonna do either) I do believe that marriage was meant for a man and woman according to the Bible..and also that sex was created between a man and a woman under the covenant of marriage..but that still doesn't give me a clear answer as to how I should live my life happily and pleasing to God.. because the truth is we all want to experience love with another person..but I don't want my heart to deceive me into darkness. I also don't believe that God would condemn an entire group of people to be celibate either.. because inorder to be happily celibate, you must be chosen by God to do so...so it's just confusing bc the Bible does not address innately same sex attracted people..just people who pursue homosexual sex to feed their lust but not in a loving way that we are talking about today.
@@victoriagauthier2369 Keep pursuing God and keep believing in the blood of Jesus, he paid everything on the cross, and with that includes being able to cast out your own demons. You too have the power to cast out demons, and to heal yourself and others, you just need to understand that the enemy doesn't want you to know that you have this power. Always pray everyday, keep seeking God, and asking him for peace and understanding. Hold on to instruction for it is your life.
As a lesbian, you can not be Christian. Christian means one following Christ, who follows God, which you are not doing. You are not even trying.
As a woman, you are to seek a good, Godly man and serve him as he serves Christ, who mediates for us to God.
Even angels have been punished harshly for sexual immorality. God made sex for procreation, not self pleasure. Why must you spit in His face?
th-cam.com/video/GYpzaknyyWY/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/GhTjEbNgTQM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/y4_iG7jRJMw/w-d-xo.html
May you find Christ one day!
Please ignore those crackpot comments about demons in that last message. Love yourself. be who you are, and celebrate the sexuality God gave you. Break free from all this bigoted, misguided, wicked crap about what the Bible says and what God says. These people are as evil as the capricious, nasty, cruel God they believe in. And don't let them kid you it's because God loves you so much He wants to save you. All that stuff is crap as well. God's Love is Love not Hate. Please, please, always remeber that - be liberated by that love .
Comments be like: how dare you do your own research and not believe exactly like I believe. I won't listen la la la la la FALSE TEACHER la la la la"
Most Conservatives are like that.
@@michelled.4874 fr
Alright here's some research for you.
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” Genesis 2:24
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew 19: 4-6
Both Yaweh and Christ have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. We also know that any act of sexuality outside the confines of a marriage is sinful, the standards of God are so high Christ calls lust adultery of the heart. To try and twist the Bible to fit some kind of pro LGBT narrative because some words referencing boy lovers somehow acquitted the LGBT community of their sin is the real false teaching. If as a Christian you are accepted by society you should be fearful that you are on the wide road and flee from the earthly desires for acceptance. Our Lord said himself that not servant is better than his master. Do not seek to be loved by the world more than the Lord himself. The Lord spoke TRUTH and was put to death for it.
@@roguerider8188 Jesus was definitely gay, I mean he got nailed by a bunch of guys on the cross right?... sounds pretty gay to me😚🌈
I can’t believe adults still believe in fairytales in 2021😂 that’s hilarious... Hope you have a good day you homophobe.
@@lyle_waddell sorry you're so offended by what you believe is a fairy tale. Don't know why you'd bother engaging with someone you think believes in children's stories.
Since you did claim that it's a fairy tale I will point out the fact that even secular sources don't refute that Jesus was a real person, was killed, and that his followers believed they saw him raised from the dead.
I do not fear homosexuals, nor do I hate them, I actually quite respect and love homosexual Christians as they live a life that is more difficult than that of a straight Christian. If we are discussing non church member homosexuals then I don't really bother thinking about them, their life isn't my business. But as a believer it's my business to call out other believers when their teachings violate the laws of the Bible and of Christ. Sorry that bothers you. But I'll keep you in my prayers.
Many people in this comment section make it obvious they did not listen to what he said in this video.
You confuse not agreeing with not listening. They are very different things.
Here's Dr. Michael Brown, an ancient Hebrew scholar, disagreeing with the whole argument.
th-cam.com/video/q8VSWqekpCY/w-d-xo.html
His whole argument is so unbiblical-anyone who actually studies the Bible knows exactly how God stands on this issue.
His argument was an article, not the Bible
@@fruit-filledolivetree5056 Oh? What "Bible" are you using? One of the many rewritten Puritan Bibles? You didn't study anything. You simply parrot Puritanism.
Thank you so much for talking about this with so much intention. I deeply appreciate this, because I've had a lot of hurt surrounding this topic. I think the hardest part is looking for concise, logical explanations that aren't biased- because either side can be very emotionally charged. This was very down-the-middle, matter of fact, and never forgot the main intent, such as remembering to operate with love.
Thank you
Grace and peace. Thanks for watching
Please don’t be deceived
The truth often hurts. Get used to it. It's the way of Christianity. We are here to prove ourselves to God, not each other. We are to love God first and foremost, with all out heart and being. Why do you reject Him and His design so? Do you not love God, first? Then do as He has designed you to do. All you are doing is rebelling against that and spitting in His face and ours, frankly, as Christians.
Defile God's design and you will be defiled. You will feel His wrath:
th-cam.com/video/nToNUQ8c1RQ/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/GhTjEbNgTQM/w-d-xo.html
Good luck in justifying yourself in front of God.
This is such a big oops that I can't even-
So many people hurt just because of a mistranslation.....
It sucks, I don't see this as "applying Bible scriptures" but self-analysis.
Man is always interjecting their laws instead of god's. That's what happened in the beginning Adam told Eve that if she eats or even touches the fruit from the tree of knowledge she will die. Which leaves you open to being corrupted because the serpent says you can touch it it won't kill you and when she does it then it doesn't kill her and then she thinks that the other part is a lie. and then to top it all off Adam tries to blame God saying the woman you gave me fed me the fruit. What an idiot. And just shows that knowledge does not give you wisdom.
@@deeveevideos You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV
@@tomboyqu3726 no one said you have to just read the KJV. there're are tons of versions as you stated. but the bible is made of multiple books. were the books in the bible the same just in different order? if that is the case oh well. and you can check the reliability by comparing all the version and you can see what isn't real when it goes way off the versions of the same book. no one can make you do anything. so if you want to find the truth then study what is troubling you and figure out if its a lie or telling the truth. but Christianity is based on the new testament the four books of mark luke and john. read those and find the errors or truth in them. but ultimately it is up to you to do it.
NO< NO mistranslation, atheists will interpret to make it acceptable.
Check this out! As I mentioned earlier, the word “homosexual” was not used in a Biblical translation until the Revised Standard Version first printed it in 1946. In more recent editions of the RSV, they have changed the word, and now use the phrase “sexual perverts.” Prior to 1946, dating back to the 17th Century, we see the King James Version using the phrase, “abusers of themselves with mankind.” An appropriate translation.
Personally I don't like "abusers of themselves with mankind". I can see how they got it, but I think, rather, it's possibly talking about men who sexually abuse others. The word doesn't say men-bedders, it says masculine-bedders. If you look at the ideal about masculinity at the time, it makes a lot of sense.
@@MusicalRaichu No, abusers of themselves with mankind clearly refers to sodomy, it's not hard to see.
@@chungusultimate yes i agree with you. the KJV translators made the same mistake as the original RSV translators and iirc the video refers to german translators doing it too, where they interpreted the problematic word in light of cultural assumptions of their day rather than in light of the culture of the original recipients.
the problem with that all this is that not only are we targetting the wrong people with the scriptures, we're failing to target those who it's really about.
@@MusicalRaichu I hope you know the bible condemns homosexuality and this video is a false doctrine.
@@chungusultimate I hope you know that the bible nowhere condemns homosexuality and this video is an attempt towards correcting a false doctrine that has caused incalculable harm.
In Israel bookstores dont recognize our western bibles. An old Jewish teacher was in an American bible store the gal working in there said if you're looking to buy a Bible we have the KJV and its half off, he looks at her and say "at least". For real y'all
@Brent Braxston I'm just repeating what the Jewish scholar said
Homosexuals wasn't added to the RSV Bible till 1946
Thank you for this video because there is so much confusing about the word homosexuality in the Bible to where families are torn apart, depression & suicide. Blessed are the pure in heart.
Grace and peace. Thanks for watching
This guy is lying to you, he is misusing the Bible to justify the practice of same-gender sex by using boy molesters as the narrative, however, he leaves out the part where Jesus quotes God from Gen 2;18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10;6-9, 1 Cor 7;2, in Matt 19;5, For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife; What God has put together let no mankind take apart.
The only 'monogamous' sexual relationship God accepts is between HUSBAND and WIFE. If God did care about how sex is to be done why would he have created the two sexes and told them to be "fruitful and multiply" Gen 1;27-28?
We all know same-gender sex cannot "be fruitful and multiply", in fact, evolution favors heterosexuality which confirms God's commandment of male and female sex only.
So true
To be pure in heart means to be loyal to Jesus and trust Him, including what He says.
Romans 1:27 - And likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire towards one another, males with males performing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral... *nor homosexuals*... will inherit the kingdom of God.
@@michaal105 Stop lying to people and spreading Puritan bs. The Bible never had the word "homosexual" in it before Puritans put it there. And Romans 1 is talking about the sexual idolatry of the Israelites, hence why you quoted it completely out of context, as if you can gather its full meaning with 1 verse at face value.
This guy smooth talks people and uses complex language to manipulate and basically say tell you anything goes, that's all he's driving at. He cares nothing about the truth or the gospel or holiness. He says "It doesn't matter its all love" that's so simplistic and we know that love has different snd deeper meanings in scriptures. Love does not support and is proud of sin.
I encourage any serious Christian to be careful with the message of this video. Jesus didn't condemn people but still condemned sin. He told the adulteress to go and sin no more after rescuing her from death
Amen. This stuff is heretical
You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV. Should spread fallacies
Oh so homosexuality isn't a sin. If life is basing on this ethic of love. Right my church needs you man.
False
Sonovgod Z can you explain?
@Sam Gborkorquellie Roman's 1:26-28 1Corinthiens 6:9-11 mark 10:6-9
@Sam Gborkorquellie ^
Sonovgod Z it was a mistranslation. Stop using the Bible to hate
Long story -- in the 1980s I worked at a hybrid (wood waste/geothermal) power plant. One day a guy comes in, asking to speak with the fuel buyer. He and I started talking and he pulled out a mason jar containing a goopy, dark semi-liquid. The base -- true layer -- was olive pits, a great little fuel, used for years to produce the energy needed to run the canneries. The old guy had a special twist, though -- he ran the pits through his pigs first. Then he collected the droppings, which he believed amplified the BTU value of the pits. So this little episode reflects my understanding of the written Word: There is a truth at the base, but it's been run through so many pigs (i.e. cultural translators and small-minded followers) that one has to really dig through the shit to find it. Words are powerful; context is imperative.
And unfortunately most of the pigs that come to your door trying to sell their shit have never gotten their noses in it to see what it really says.
Hahah, the "narrative" of God is male and female, man and wife sex only he told them to be fruitful and multiply Gen 1;27-28. What same-sex couple do you know multiplied by having sex? Why would have created the two sexes if didn't care who they had sex with?
The 'truth at the base" came when Jesus quotes God from Gen 2;18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Cor 7;2, and affirms Man and Wife sex only in Matt 19;5 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife; What God has put together let no "mankind" take apart.
This guy is clearly misrepresenting and misusing the context of the Bible to justify the particular sin of same-gender sex which is included in the book of Leviticus along with fornication, adultery, incest, necrophilia, and yes, pedophilia, his trying exclude the practice of homosexuality/ LGBTQ as being a sexually immoral sin which no one has the authority to do, I don't care how much you hate it.
No one is exempt, no one has a license to commit any kind of sin including the practice of same-gender sex/LGBTQ there is no excuse for sin John 15;22, and no one has the authority to abolish God's law against homosexuality/LGBTQ.
From the beginning to end it is MALE and FEMALE, MAN and WIFE OT and NT. Your little story doesn't matter when it comes to God's word...😊
Way to jump from providing context and resources to just stating with no reference that the Leviticus meaning is men shouldn't be passive in bed.
God knew me before he formed me in womb so I can’t understand why I’m a abomination cause god forms the brain too before birth
You have never been anything less than beloved by God.
The word "homosexual" is an English word so of course it wasn't in the original bible. The word that was translated is "Arsenokoitai" It does not translate to "pedophile" it translates to man bedding with man. That sounds like a homosexual to me.
If you get a chance to watch the video, we talk about the translation of arsenokoitai
In fact, the title of the video is about whether arsenokoitai has always been translated the way it is today.
It does not translate to man bedding with man. It translate to man and beds. That sounds like prostitution to me. And given the context of all the words in the same verse, has to do with temple prostitution. Hence why scholars attribute it to being the descriptive of a "sodomite", which scholars literally translated the term over the Hebrew word of a "male temple prostitute". Given that Sodom and Gomorrah were cities within the promised land, Leviticus 18 and 20 suggested strongly that they were literally sexually worshipping Molech. In fact, it says they were sacrificing children unto Molech. You read what God says about Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18, and you see that He says there was a great out cry from the cities and their sin was very grievous. The worst sin imaginable, as per the commandment, was blasphemy. But another thing God hated beyond that, was the sacrificing of children to such gods. If you read the story about Cain and Abel, it was Abel's innocent blood that cried out from the earth to God, and also what cursed the land against Cain. Genesis 18 suggests the same thing, and Leviticus 18 details exactly why that was.
The original Greek and Hebrew is very clear. Let's take Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it's an abomination" . In the video you said זָכָ֔ר "za-kar" for male, so we know that yes it is a Man not a boy. Further on it says: לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה "lo tis-kab mis-ke-be is-sah tow e-bah" The literal translation is: " And with a male not You shall lie as with a woman, [is] an abomination".
They key word is "lie with" תִּשְׁכַּ֥ב "tis-kab". This same word is used as the cultural expression of "to sleep with" or "to have sex with". The next verse uses the same word speaking of how it is defiling to "lie with" or "have sex with" an animal.
My point is, the actual word "homosexual" may not have be used but let's not lose sight of what is clearly being said. It clearly is saying Men should not have sex with other men as they do with women because it is an abomination. Romans 16:26 says: "It has been made clear through the writings of the prophets. And by the command of the eternal God it is made known to all nations that they might believe and obey."
This is clear, Men having sex with other men is an abomination. All things abominable or people that CONTINUE to practice such things have no place in the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ saves us from ALL sin, even homosexuality, but we must have a repentant heart and TURN from any and all sin. We all make mistakes and we give in to the desires of our flesh but we must turn from it and ask God to give us strength so that we may obey.
Redefining the God-inspired scripture is idolatry because a person choses what and what not to take and worships their own man-made god, better suiting their own interests, despite the clear and evident warnings that were given to us.
As I've replied to others here, if God was totally against same-sex acts Leviticus would say "men don't sleep with men, women don't lie with women". Instead, there is no restriction on women and the prohibition on men is more specific, i.e. if two men want to do it, they can't do it in the way a man does it with a woman. There are several theories as to what that might mean, but at least it's clear that Leviticus is not consistent with the idea that God is against all same-sex acts.
In any case, it is dubious to take something aimed at another culture in another age let alone under a different covenant which no longer applies, and apply it word for word to our modern situation. Jesus gave us "a new commandment" and all our attempts at working out a morality should be assessed in that light.
@@MusicalRaichu And what about Romans 1:24-27 ?
@@pandakawaiidebby890 In Romans 1, Paul is arguing that gentiles were sinners, and obviously he's talking about the gentiles of his day. Their attitudes to sexuality were so different to today that it can be quite misleading taking a description of that and interpreting it in the light of modern views of sexuality.
Instead of classifying people as gay/straight, they thought in terms of penetrator/penetrated. Men of higher social status were penetrators and women as well as men of lower status were penetrated. Penetrators were seen as dominating, deriving pleasure from and denigrating the penetrated. So male citizens (in modern terms we would call heterosexual) would do it with male prostitutes, boys, and (in modern terms we would say sexually abuse) male and female slaves just for fun and to boost their own sense of masculinity. Paul was right to criticize what they were doing.
If you look at it closely phrase by phrase, Romans 1 aptly describes what was happening in Rome. However, it fails to describe mutually respectful, caring same-sex relationships based on sexual orientation. Think about a boy raised in a Christian home accepting the faith but reaching puberty only to find he's gay. How does Romans 1 describe him? He hasn't worshipped idols, abandoned heterosexual relationships (it was never an option for him), gotten inflamed with lust, or gotten filled with various evils. Nothing in that chapter fits, does it?
@@MusicalRaichu Thank you for your answer.
But help to understand, what do you mean by same-sex relationship. To which extend do you refer to it? The same as a opposite-sex relationship or is it different in any ways?
@@pandakawaiidebby890 I'm not gay so I don't know the what a same-sex relationships is like. Then again, if you ask someone who's gay, they won't know what an opposite-sex relationships is like.
My guess is that they're the same. Most people reach puberty and find themselves attracted to the opposite sex but a few to the same sex. That's probably the main difference.
Other than that, they experience companionship, intimacy, building a life together etc. the same way. Or they can be promiscuous or abusive or unfaithful the same way.
What about Matthew 19:4-5? In regards to marriage Jesus said: “Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,” and He also said: “ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
Three times Jesus mentions the male and female union. Once, when God made the created the first union at the beginning. Then, when a man leaves his father and mother (second man and woman union), then unites with his wife (third man and woman union).
If this man and female union isn't important to God (as in God is ok with homosexual unions) then why did Jesus refer back to Genesis? He could have answered their question without quoting scripture about male and female union. Didn't God DESIGN a man and woman to be together?
I don’t think you’d find many people, regardless on their views of LGBTQ inclusion, arguing that heterosexual relationships aren’t important or even normative. That seems to be a fundamental part of our biology and procreative need. The only argument is whether we can and should affirm those human beings, also beloved children of God, who do not conform to the norm.
@@commonschurch yes, all people are important, made and loved by God. I just don't see biblical verses that support same sex unions.
I believe gay, but celibate, because I can't find biblical support to suggest otherwise.
With respect it’s going to be hard to make it through life if you need to find biblical support for everything you do. A better model is perhaps to internalize the ethic of Jesus and make decisions based on that.
It's going to be hard to make it through life without Jesus in our hearts. The holy spirit will always show us where God is in all this. Tbh.. I think life would be easier if I have biblical verses that support what I am doing, because if the Bible goes against what I'm doing, then I would realize I have drifted away from Christ, a sin is the separation from God.
@@joyfulspirit cause of new translations daah!!🤣
I have struggled with my sexuality for a very long time. I became depressed because of it and contemplated suicide. If I was going to go to hell anyway, why wait. That's what I used to think. I remember crying and asking God to speak to me but there was only silence. Why would he speak and waste his time with someone insignificant. I was like that for FIVE long and excruciatingly painful years filled with depression, hate, and suicidal thoughts. I finally left Christianity and tried many religious practices none called to me except Buddhism. Through Buddhism I learned to forgive, to be patient, and to love again. For those in the comments who continue to spew the same regurgitated biblical scriptures I truely wish you find peace and to stop giving the classic back handed love I was given by many Christians of different denominations.
Hahah, so you rather believe in a Fat Man in a diaper if it allows you to commit the sexually immoral sin of same-gender sex? One thing, does Budda promise you everlasting life? Budda claims enlightenment, not eternity. The sad part for you is you have no idea of what love is nor of what did for you or you just don't want to accept the real reason why Jesus gave his life.
You prayed to God but think you got no answer but you fail to understand that God already gave you the answer you just refused to accept it because you really didn't like it that's why you left Christianity.
There is only one God and that is God, you'd better rethink what you're doing because the immorality of same-gender sex is very serious to God why would he have created the two sexes if the act wasn't an issue?😊
Yet you are still here while others have certainly followed through in their suicide. God surely loves you🤍
Hey I feel you buddy, I hope you know you’re not alone
Buddhism also condemns homosexuality.
@Alexy Leo L.-S. The bible certainly does condemn homosexuality.
It's not like its an entirely new concept that randomly materialized out of nowhere. There is written proof that the concept of homosexuality existed in 2100bc in "The epic of Gilgamesh" which has two male characters kissing. (Gilgamesh and Enkidu) Gilgamesh described his feelings for Enkidu as "Loved him like a woman"
Homosexuality has been around as long as humanity. It’s the idea of sexuality as an identity that is a modern innovation.
The beat in the intro is fire
I believe you are sincere. But I also believe you are sincerely wrong. You went to the Scriptures looking for validation of your own political perspective, and you've drawn enough smokescreens around the text to pretend you don't understand it.
"Arsenokoitai" is Paul quoting, directly, from the Septuagint version of the Torah, the dreaded "Leviticus 18:22" passage which says "You shall not have sex with (koitai, from which we get the modern word koitus) a man (Arsen) as with a woman; it is an abomination."
All that confusion about "boy sex" is a red herring: this passage does not speak about that at all.
A survey of ancient Greek literature shows that the word "ἀρσενοκοῖται" is coined by Paul... it does not appear before Paul uses it... but that it comes into common usage AFTER Paul, always meaning "Homosexuality." Paul is literally quoting Moses (albeit creating a compound word to do so) with regard to this issue, and there is no differentiation between man/boy sex and man/man sex in the text... bringing that concept in is the very heart of eisegesis.
But as if that wasn't enough, Paul describes the homosexual act in Romans 1:
Romans 1:26-27 (ESV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Now, your arguments about "clobber passages" is meant to invoke the image of those of us using the Bible to inform our position as being bullies or thugs, "clobbering" people with the text. But the alternative is to avoid the text. So the idea of a "clobber passage" is really just a childish way of saying "I don't want to listen to the Bible."
We must not listen to the Bible through the lens of our politics or our desires. Yes, Love is the supreme ethic, but 54% of new AIDS cases are in the MSM (men who have sex with men) community, according too CDC.gov. MSM comprises roughly 2% of the population. To illustrate this, take 100 pennies (each representing 1% of all new AIDS cases) and divide them among 100 men: the first two men get 27 pennies each, the remaining 44 pennies are divided among the remaining 98 men. That's the danger of homosexual activity.
By age 40, most homosexual men report having more than 1000 partners. A homosexual lifestyle reduces life expectancy by 30 years. Domestic abuse is FAR more prevalent in the homosexual community than the heterosexual community.
So when we say "Love is the supreme ethic," the loving thing to do is to guide people OUT of this deadly lifestyle. You don't give an alcoholic a drink because you "love" him, you help him to avoid alcohol because you love him. Love desires the good of the other, and pushing someone toward or encouraging them in self destructive behaviors (like homosexuality) is the very opposite of a loving act.
"homoxesuality" is category invented in modern times referring to those who are attracted to the "same secs". in paul's day there was no such categories as liking the "same" vs "opposite" secs. male-bedders could not possibly have meant "homoxesual".
Other reasons:
- the modern word includes women who like women (hardly MALE-bedders)
- people who stay selibate are still homoxesaul (hardly male-BEDDERS)
- the context indicates deliberate hurtful acts but it is entirely possible for gays to be in loving, faithful relationships hurting no-one
- the context indicates behaviour people can change, but you can neither change your orientation nor remove your God-given needs for companionship and intimacy let alone secsual desire
- if it meant men bedding males, there were far too many such men in that era than could be explained by secsual orientation - it's about a completely different phenomenon unrelated to innate attraction
Unlike you claim, references to the word are mostly vice lists often quoted from the Bible. There is insufficient context or details anywhere about what male-bedders were doing or why it was wrong. There is no way to prove it meant "homoxesausl". Even if it likely meant men who go to bed with males (in those days, mostly boys and male prostitoots), what were the connotations? Why was it wrong? If you look at what was happening in the culture at the time and the prevalent attitudes to masculinity, you'll have your answer.
You point out some issues with the way modern gay lifestyle has developed, but you don't provide an answer to what someone gay should do with their lives. Stay single their whole life? That's a steep imposition, and God himself said it's not good. Marry against their orientation? That has been tried and it doesn't work. The answer is to repent from destructive practices and enter committed, faithful, loving relationships consistent with their orientation.
But because the church has been sending an erroneous message, teaching a false gospel that is impossible to obey, we have pushed these people away from God's saving grace and aided in perpetuating their harmful practices. We are complicit in the harmful behaviour you describe.
@@MusicalRaichu So what you're saying is that homosexuals are a recent invention?
Did you miss the first chapter of Romans? I bet you did!
@@AJBernard Alas the issue is much more complex than meets the eye and that's what creates the confusion. Given the misinterpretation that has built up on this issue, it can't really be explained in a few words. I'll give you some basic points as best I understand.
Homosecsuality is a concept invented in modern times that artificially combines androphilic men and gynephilic women into a single category. The understanding that people have an enduring capacity for intimate relationship with the same secs that cannot be changed at will is even more recent.
I'm not saying that males never went to bed together in the past - this is clearly mentioned in Rom 1 as you point out. It's just that categorizing the behaviour as "liking the same secs" is what's modern. In the past people were categorized differently. It makes no sense to use the term "homosecsual" in relation to anything before last century, certainly not the Bible.
The belief that same-secs acts are inherently wrong also appears to be modern. The traditional church belief was that all non-reproductive acts were wrong. If you followed traditional catholic and protestant teaching, then you would equally call a husband and wife having oral secs a sin. Even before that developed, men bedding adult men was problematic for other reasons, which is why they were doing it with boys, which the early church understandably opposed.
As for Rom 1, Paul is quoting Jewish stereotypes of gentile behaviour in order to get his Jewish readers to lower their guard so that he can more easily convince them that they are just as sinful. But you need to be careful about his statements. He said "ancient Roman idolatrous males did shameful things", a different statement to "all same-acts are sinful" which is how people often misread it. The Bible never says the latter. The very same texts we pull today to support the idea that homoxesuality is wrong were used in previous centuries to support the idea that non-reproductive secs was wrong, which demonstrates how open to interpretation they are.
This is not a trivial issue. As a start, I can recommend the videos on this channel which at least goes into what the Bibles says a lot more closely. The analyses of Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6 are particularly helpful.
th-cam.com/channels/vxHn5v4XXNPdugStF3l6BQ.html
@@MusicalRaichu It's actually not at all complex. The Bible is very clear. You're the one muddying the waters.
You say "it doesn't mean what it says, it means something else," but you only say that because it suits your political agenda. There are actually several more places than just those two which talk about it... in the end, it's very clear.
Also, if you track the usage of the word "arsenokoitai," you find that Paul coins it by quoting from Leviticus 18:22, which is the verse you all REALLY hate. But he quotes from the Septuagint, which is why it's in greek. After Paul coins the term, it comes into common usage in the Greek and it always means the same thing: Men who have sex with men.
Have a nice night.
@@AJBernard You seem to have some misunderstanding.
you can assert it's not complex all you want, doesn't change reality. you might like things to be simple, but the fact is they're not.
What political agenda? Here in Australia, the country as a whole voted to accept same-secs marriage. Maybe in your country the issue has been politicized, but it has nothing to do with politics here.
some think paul coined male-bedders from leviticus, but
- that's conjecture, possible but not proved, so you shouldn't rely on it
- as i explained in detail, male-bedders does not mean homoxesual
- paul's view of leviticus is that it has been annulled and no longer applies
- leviticus is not about homoxesuality (the concept did not even exist at the time), it's about patriarchy, a male taking a woman's role
finally, the bible means what it says. it's those distorting it that are being deceptive:
bible: do not lie with a male as with a woman
some people: do not lie with the same secs
bible: idolatrous males did shameful things with each other
some people: lying with the same secs is shameful
bible: male-bedders are sinning
some people: homoxesauls are sinning
bible: it is not good to be alone
some people: gays have to stay alone
bible: for this reason a man marries a woman
some people: forget the reason, a man must only ever marry a reason or else it's a sin
bible: God destroyed those towns because of their callous disregard for other people
some people: God destroyed those towns because they were gay
i have to go now. have a nice day.
Thank you so so much for this! I am a lesbian and me and my girlfriend are both religious but I have been having doubts whether or not God actually loves me or not and I know I didn’t choose to be gay but I don’t feel accepted anywhere in the religion but this is reassuring to hear so thank you again aaaa
Grace and peace
wdym. its just lies
@@jeffyboy9657 explain why it's lies? I dont mean to be rude tho! I just wanna hear what u think
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Romans 1:26-27
I'm not about to tell you what to do or what to belive. I want to clarify what the bible says. In these verses, Paul is writing to the romans about lust in between women and women or men and men contrary to nature. God will always love you but there is always a penalty for sin. Please repent. I don't say this to be mean but to clarify what the bible says.
You are loved fully and completely by our creator! Do not ever doubt that. I do not care what anyone ever says to you! Jesus loves you, God is your rock! Never let an imperfect human shake your relationship with your creator! Stand firm in your faith that you are loved fully and completely. Stay focused on the path God wants for you. Pray about it always. It's between you and God, no one else. God knows your heart, God understands you fully. Thank you for sharing part of your testimony!+
There are many verses that speak of men turning towards men and women towards women and it’s not in a positive light. Stop twisting scripture and turn to God. I turned to God and I know for a FACT that my same sex attraction is not aligned with his will!
We support you in being true to your convictions and the way God leads you. May you continue to find grace and peace in Christ.
@@commonschurch Thank you! May you be blessed as well by the grace of our great God.
There are also verses that speak of after winning wars take the underage girls for yourself but I guess that is A OK tho...
MulderYuffieOCT this is precisely the issue. It's absurd on its face to think we can follow all of the verses in the Bible literally today, so we have to pick and choose. When we're honest about that, we can develop a consistent ethic that guides those choices. Our argument here is that it should be the ethic of love that we see in Jesus that guides us.
@@MulderYuffie You can follow every verse in the Bible to the absolute perfection and yet not know God at all, not even to the slightest bit. It even says so in the Bible. And you can be a total mess, a wreck with a wretched and sinful heart and know God, if your heart is contright. Because God is not a text. You have to use the sense of morale that comes from GOD when you read. You need to ask to see through Gods eyes that you may be given understanding. Do you know what satan used when he tried to tempt and deceive Jesus Christ in the desert? Scripture!
2 Timothy 4:3, NLT: "For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear." I've heard this following argument against the Bible and its authority: "The Bible is out of date for today's modern world." But..the real question is "Is the modern world out of date with the Bible?"
The answer is quite obvious, both sentences are correct, because we can't apply everything in the Bible to our modern world and vice versa.
The people in the past understood many words in the Bible, different than the people today.
So we need to understand how the people in past thought and what their definition of many words were.
All these arguments about a few words, attempting to justify lifestyles contrary to God. Using the old context and history and words definition arguments. Jesus clearly said a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife. The entire Bible from start to finish features men marrying women and both parties remaining chaste before so.
When God created a helper, a marriage partner, it was a woman. And in the book of Daniel, there's an oddity the vast majority of Christians don't know. That the coming antichrist will have "no affinity for women", showing clearly it's an aberration.
We all have sins, desires and tendencies we need to counteract and repent of and I'm no exception. But I'm not going to twist scriptures and justify things that are not Godly.
@@tomy8339 okay so using context for understanding is a bad thing, also many don't know that God is against democracy. And "no affinity for woman"?
That could also mean that he's asexual.
You see the bible is not the Quran, context and understanding about how words work is quite important.
@@strix5673 As I said, what did Jesus say about marriage? Who did God provide a marriage partner for Adam? And where is there acknowledgement of a single same sex couple in the Bible? Could not Romans 1 be any clearer? Men doing with men what is abominable? And women likewise exchanging the natural use of men for one another? What does Paul say are the qualifications of an elder? Amongst others things, husband of one wife. The parable of the 10 virgins as Jesus spoke. Men marrying women.
You talk about context, there it is. Context, from Genesis to Revelation. Every instance of marriage between humans, men marrying women. Please don't come here and attempt to cast doubt upon what the scriptures are crystal clear about.
@@tomy8339 so you're a hypocrite, doesn't surprise me, it's pretty normal for homophobes to be hypocrites.
First Jesus and marriage, you totally miss the message of this explanation, not surprising at all, because you don't understand how context works.
Read the entire chapter, Jesus refering to divorce, because he was asked a direct question about divorce.
Secondly Romans 1, again read the entire chapter, Paul isn't refering to Homosexuality, he's referring to worshiping idols, he literally describes this.
But acknowledging this means you cannot cherry picking.
If you know the scriptures so good as you claim, you should know that a sin is only a sin when it's written in the law.
Where's the law against love or marriage?
Besides that it's extremely amusing that you bring Romans 1 up, because this part is perfectly displaying that it isn't about Homosexuality. Do you know what Homosexuality is? Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't bring this part up, because that would make Paul to a liar, because what he describes doesn't reflect reality.
It's really a shame that people twisting the scriptures, so they can justify their wish to look down on others.
This is a very interesting conclusion. As you said into the video, it was about the men who were molesting or abusing boys in that time, there was also nothing in the Bible that says anything about a woman lying with girls or women lying with women. What also doesn’t add up is; the whole analysis of the Bible is love. To have room in your heart for Jesus, and if people weren’t “allowed” to have homosexual relationships, it’s just like saying you can’t love someone because you’re a certain gender. And the word “homosexual” wasn’t even used in bibles before the 20th century. It was prior to men sleeping/molesting *boys* not men sleeping with other men.
But he also noted that in Leviticus it is concerned with the man’s role in sexual acts and essentially says that a man cannot be in the “passive” or as natural law would say is the woman’s role which does indicate something other than just molesters. Also, most people don’t know that catholic teaching acknowledges that there are some people that might have sexual tendencies other than that of a man and a woman and rather than saying “you’re going straight to hell” it says that those should practice chastity so that they don’t act upon those tendencies.
One argument that is sometimes offered by Christian advocates of same-sex marriage is that the Apostle Paul was not thinking of loving, monogamous adult relationships, and only intended to condemn Greco/Roman pederasty. I’ve been spending a lot of time reading ancient Greek texts on sexuality recently, and that has gotten me thinking in general about Paul’s historical context and, more specifically, about this argument.
First, it’s important to acknowledge that relationships between adult men and adolescent boys or young men were the most commonly attested same-sex relationships in the ancient world. There are exceptions-Plato’s Symposium discusses committed, lifelong same-sex relationships-but this is by far the most common kind of relationship. We should therefore acknowledge that the Apostle Paul was likely most familiar with this kind of same-sex sexual activity.
It’s worth observing, however, that precisely because this form of same-sex sexuality was so common, there was standard terminology in Greek for talking about these relationships-the older man was the erastes (lover) and the younger man the eromenos (beloved). If these relationships were Paul’s target, it would have been reasonable for him to use these standard Greek terms.
Instead, he used an apparently novel term, arsenokoitai, which he took from Helenistic Judaism. The most logical derivation of this new word is from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22, which says that you shall not lie with (koiten) a man (arsenos) as with a woman.
In both Greek and English, verbs can be transformed into nouns. Thus, in English, swimmers are people who swim. In Greek, the koitai are men (-ai is a masculine ending) who koiten-that is, “lie with” in a sexual sense. So the arsenokoitai are men who lie with other men in a sexual sense.
There is an additional reason for thinking that arsenokoitai is derived from Leviticus 18:22. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, the Apostle Paul writes,
we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the Law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
Paul is listing various disobedient groups of people who have been given the Law to tell that their acts are contrary to God’s will. Thus, we would expect the arsenokoitai to correspond to some prohibition in the Law. The obvious candidate prohibition, for reasons given above, is Leviticus 18:22.
It’s important not to misunderstand the context of this prohibition. Paul is no harsher in his condemnation of homosexual activity than he is of sexual immorality in general. And just a few verses later, he writes, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life” (1 Timothy 1:15-16). Anyone who uses these verses either to single out homosexual sin for unique condemnation, or who fails to speak with humility of God’s love for all, is misusing the text.
However, it’s also important not to misunderstand the prohibition itself. While pederasty was the most common form of same-sex activity recorded in ancient writings, Paul doesn’t use the common language of pederasty. Instead of condemning age or power differences, he coins a new word which focuses particularly on relationships that involve two men.
These kinds of considerations, it seems to me, make the claim that Paul was only condemning pederasty-rather than same-sex sexual activity more generally-much more problematic.
I don't think your approach is progressive so much as thought-out and sound theology.
🙏
We shouldn’t read it thru our lens at all. Paul was a Jew and we need to read it or translate it from a 1st Century Jew's lens. Jesus was a rabbi and he affirmed the teachings of the Torah in regard to sexual immorality. There is no cultural deference from the Old to New Testament. You are convoluting the very simple reading and context of the verses. We don't translate from the word in Greek alone but from the context and view of Jesus and the Apostles... as 1st Century Jews who happened to be believers that Jesus was the Messiah.
Now if we embrace the Truth that is not “worshipping the bible” it is loving God first and then sharing that Truth in love to others.
The Gospel will challenge us.... we are all sinners in need of a Savior. Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it for us on the Cross and affirmed his authority when he defeated death and rose again glorified. When God, in His mercy, calls us to repent from our lives, to take up our cross and die to this life, not change the Bible to suit the culture, He requires us to repent and submit that life to him totally. We are saved FROM our old life, "behold all things are new" when born of the Spirit of Truth. We take on our identity given to us and born in us as a child of the Living God, redeemed from our dead life and born again as a Spirit-filled son or daughter of God our Father.
Remember they used the bible to condone slavery smh
What is this lie
Huh?
Extremely WELL SAID! One is missing the real point of the Bible and Christianity entirely by reading the Bible as a "rule book". It should instead be read focusing the overall concept of what Christ wants us to be, and that is His loving, compassionate family genuinely loving and caring for each other and earnestly loving Him as our compassionate and loving father, savior and very best friend of all time. He loves us unconditionally and He wants us to love each other the same way. Remember, the Bible says in numerous places that one cannot earn his way into Heaven regardless of how many good things he does here on earth or how many rules he obeys. The ONLY way into Heaven is through one's faith in Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as his personal savior. Truly good works - that is works that are done out of genuine compassion and love for others - will indeed be rewarded in Heaven, but they will not get you there.
I read somewhere that King James "HIMSELF" was a homosexual and the King Jame's Bible was written to highlight and support power differentials between LORD and SUBJECT as between SELF and Self.
I’ve been hearing this for like 20 years
(original sources rule the translation)...where does the word come from, Paul used the Greek to preach to the gentiles, in the Septuagint in Leviticus 18.22/20.13 (some of the clobber passages) the word for male is "arsenos" and the greek for lie with is "koitas" so "arsenos koitas" so the meaning is clear (like the scholar said it is two men in bed and they ain't eating crackers)
that is only one possible interpretation, and one that in recent history has proven itself false by the horrific damage it has done.
a word has connotations. if I said "the teacher gave a talk to the class" vs "the teacher gave the class a talking to", the words are almost the same, the denotation is the same, but the connotations are considerably different.
we don't know what connotations were in Paul's mind when he was using the word. did he believe every possible case of two men in bed was inherently wrong? or was he looking at the damage done to youth by predatory relationships? or perhaps the way slaivs were misused for this purpose?
and all this is assuming that the word even refers to two men in bed, of which there is no guarantee. the best we can say is that it is some kind of unacceptably hurtful secsual practice involving at least one male.
What about Romans 1:26-28 ?
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
Watching in 2020 and I love this very insightful
So glad you found it :)
@@commonschurch Can you explain Sodom and Gomorrah? Can you also explain to me when God first created the first man - Adam...why he then created Eve the first woman to be with him. Did He make a mistake?? When he first created Adam in the garden of Eden everything was it not perfect. I just wonder why He would create this and deem it as perfect. Is the not the perfect model or....??????
@@alexiscolby9415 Sodom and Gomorrah is a terrible story about treating outsiders with utter contempt and sexual violence. Everything in that story should be condemned. Ezekiel 16:49-50
Would you consider yourself to be a good person?
Try the test: How many lies have you told, and what do you call someone who lies? Have you ever stolen something (even when you were small. Even from your parents. Even a sweet), and what do you call someone who steals? Have you ever taken God’s name in vain (very serious; in Old Testament times, the Jews wouldn’t even say the name of God for fear of blasphemy) - even ‘OMG’? Jesus said whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart; have you ever looked with lust? One more: Ever disrespected your parents?
Well I’m not judging you - but if you’ve done these things then you’re a liar, thief, blasphemer, adulterer-at-heart and rebel, so you're not good enough to go to heaven; that’s how seriously God takes sin. He is Holy (perfectly good/righteous and separate from sin) which means that He is perfect in justice; that means that just like a just judge does sentence criminals to pay for the wrong they caused, do does God sentence the payment of all sins - and if He were to judge you by the moral law (we’ve already looked at 4 commandments) would you be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? The answer is hell - the wrath of God upon you for your sin
And the just God will punish ALL sin. Is that concerning?
But fortunately, God’s will is not that you perish. He wants all men everywhere to be saved. So do you know what He did for us guilty sinners? In self-giving mercy, He sent His Son Jesus Christ (and here is why). He lived the perfect life that we should have lived - tempted at all points and yet He NEVER sinned. Through His life, being in very nature God, He revealed God to men; but we in our hatred condemned Him to death. On that cross as Jesus suffered, He took on the sin of the world and was judged in our place; receiving God’s wrath. You and I broke God’s law, but Jesus paid the fine. God can justly forgive us.
On that cross He died, then He was buried, but 3 days later He was raised from the dead - conquering death and Hell and ushering in The Kingdom of God. He then ascended to the right hand of God the Father (where He came from) now Lord of the living and the dead. God has fixed a date when He will judge the world in righteousness. What you need to do is repent (In humility, acknowledge your sin before God and turn to a relationship with Him) and trust ALONE in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross; and God will grant you the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then be baptised. Jesus' perfect righteousness will be accredited to you and you can stand in a relationship with the God of the Universe, a Father. If you repent and believe the gospel.
ROMANS 10:9 - If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
@@commonschurch Is God going to let you into heaven after He judges the world?
Try the test: How many lies have you told, and what do you call someone who lies? Have you ever stolen something (even when you were small. Even from your parents. Even a sweet), and what do you call someone who steals? Have you ever taken God’s name in vain (very serious; in Old Testament times, the Jews wouldn’t even say the name of God for fear of blasphemy) - even ‘OMG’? Jesus said whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart; have you ever looked with lust? One more: Ever disrespected your parents?
Well I’m not judging you - but if you’ve done these things then you’re a liar, thief, blasphemer, adulterer-at-heart and rebel, so you're not good enough to go to heaven; that’s how seriously God takes sin. He is Holy (perfectly good/righteous and separate from sin) which means that He is perfect in justice; that means that just like a just judge does sentence criminals to pay for the wrong they caused, do does God sentence the payment of all sins - and if He were to judge you by the moral law (we’ve already looked at 4 commandments) would you be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? The answer is hell - the wrath of God upon you for your sin
And the just God will punish ALL sin. Is that concerning?
But fortunately, God’s will is not that you perish. He wants all men everywhere to be saved. So do you know what He did for us guilty sinners? In self-giving mercy, He sent His Son Jesus Christ (and here is why). He lived the perfect life that we should have lived - tempted at all points and yet He NEVER sinned. Through His life, being in very nature God, He revealed God to men; but we in our hatred condemned Him to death. On that cross as Jesus suffered, He took on the sin of the world and was judged in our place; receiving God’s wrath. You and I broke God’s law, but Jesus paid the fine. God can justly forgive us.
On that cross He died, then He was buried, but 3 days later He was raised from the dead - conquering death and Hell and ushering in The Kingdom of God. He then ascended to the right hand of God the Father (where He came from) now Lord of the living and the dead. God has fixed a date when He will judge the world in righteousness. What you need to do is repent (In humility, acknowledge your sin before God and turn to a relationship with Him) and trust ALONE in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross; and God will grant you the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then be baptised. Jesus' perfect righteousness will be accredited to you and you can stand in a relationship with the God of the Universe, a Father. If you repent and believe the gospel.
ROMANS 10:9 - If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
im a lesbian and i say things like ...what if theres a homeless man whose hungry and everyone is just walking past him, but if my gf and i stop and give him something to eat and help me out. What would Jesus say? would he say, well it doesnt matter cause their gay so their going to hell, OR would he say when we fed the homeless man, we fed him?
Jesus would say, well done, this is faith that God accepts as pure 🙏
@@commonschurch thank you
Even though Christianity teaches brotherly Love as Jesus did, most Christians are often judgmental towards those who don't share the same beliefs or who are simply different, and most Christians often don't recognize the hypocritical nature of their judgments.
In this way, Satan (the Ego) has corrupted Christianity, and most Christians don't seem to recognize this or try to correct this.
Instead, most Christians tend to fuel a sense of self-righteousness and superiority within themselves that too often leads to conflict with those who don't agree with them.
That is not what Jesus taught!
Jesus taught: Love your neighbor as yourself.
No exceptions!
Jesus didn't say: Love your neighbor only if he or she is like you, or Love your neighbor only if he or she is Christian, or Love your neighbor only if he or she is heterosexual.
Jesus taught that our neighbor is not different than us, that everyone is the same in the eyes of God, that everyone is God made flesh and that the same kingdom of heaven is within everyone.
Jesus had no intention of creating a religion, and Jesus was not involved in creating Christianity, and yet... a religion was created in Jesus' name.
I just want to clarify this to those for whom Jesus' name and Christianity... seem one and the same.
When Jesus took on this mission, he knew this would happen.
Jesus knew that his teachings would be misused and misunderstood.
The bible never said that we are God except for in genesis but with that it was referring to the fact that we had the ability to now gain knowledge of right and wrong plus the only bible that said we are God is the one for the church of satan which is a satanic cult
@@jaycesmith6425:
When i said that everyone is God, i meant: everyone is a manifestation of God, just as Jesus is too.
Sadly, Christians may have missed the very boat their savior sailed away on. They just did not get it. If they had truly followed what he taught, the world would be over populated with the millions of people who did Not get murdered in his name. But millions did die in his name. So sad.
I am I. I am that I am. We ain't this body...what we are is G-d having a human experience. When you realize that the Heavenly Father Jesus referred to is your higher self, then you will also know I am that I am. Then you are born again. Jesus was mocked when he tried to tell people this. His flesh was not G-d, but the Father in him, His higher self was G-d. My higher self, your higher self and Jesus's higher self is exactly the same being. But we are not the same on this earth. That we are this body is an illusion to those who don't have eyes to see.
@@edgarmorales4476 can you explain more? You meant we all have a cup of God instead of us
I can’t possibly disagree with this more! Black is black white is white wrong is wrong. There are so many passages in the Bible that say it is wrong for men to sleep with men. How can you talk about it being culturally relevant. You’re just using culture and trying to blurb it into the Bible. It is such false.
There are so many verses? I’m intrigued did you find some news ones? Cause most agree there are 6.
It’s very clear that men having a sexual relationship with men is wrong. You can say what you will. I don’t care. I’m not interested in a debate. I just felt the need to speak my peace. Homosexual relationships are wrong.
Well, even if we disagree, we do appreciate the comment Mr Suzie.
Grace and peace.
The church traumatized me with this shit.
Right? Same here. I can't even get a job because where I'm from, we're not treated as human beings.
@@ronneff5894 In that sense the church must not have male members because Jesus is male. lol The fact that the church is considered feminine and there are male members, well, that already sounds queer to me. HAHA. Go on spreading hate, Ron. Let's see if you can get to heaven with that. lol
@@MichaelTheophilus906 I'm not. Lol. I'm quite talking sensibly here, with hints of sarcasm. Clearly, you're the one accusing me, which is Satanic because Satan is the accuser. And you're clearly lying. Lol. I can feel your indifference and hate reeking. Grow up, Michael. Know that the world is not always about yall heteros.
I’m sorry. Grace and peace.
@@brightskysyl3913 if you read the Bible everyone who are believers is the church. Male or female,Jew or Greek .Marriage is a picture of our relationship with Jesus. When you look a Jewish weddings you can heavily see the similarities. Like bride price is a picture of why Jesus dead and only the father knows when the day of the wedding is. Read how Jesus talked about marriage and Paul’s letters and you will see the marriage is a form of worship and something not to be taken light. Marriage is another way for God to teach us about spiritual thing that we can’t fully understand. And believers are not to hate, but love our enemies. So just because we don’t support the lgbtq+ community does not mean we hate them. Jesus love does while we where sinners. I think you are getting disagreeing and hate mix up. And not understanding marriage is going to be a lot of people’s down fall.
Fantastic, good man. Thank you so much !
Romans 1:27-And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
John 8:44-You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
The context of Romans 1 is idolatry and lust. Paul was condemning the gentiles for worshipping false idols so excessively that they started breaking their traditions and having lustful sex with the same gender. He never once said it was a sin to marry the same gender.
@@bawbjusbawb6471 No you're wrong. Yahweh said it and that settles it.
@@AlexRodriguez-kl9qm Please stop. You embarrass yourself. If you want to create your own religion where blasphemy is acceptable, then go ahead. This is what you are doing when you cherry pick to make scripture say what you want it to. You have created your own God. You break the 1st Commandment. Repent. I'll humor you no more, but pray that you are not given up to your own reprobate mind.
@@bawbjusbawb6471 I'll pray for you. It's really sad to see people like you twisting the Bible to fit your prejudice narratives. You've violated the 1st commandment not me.
@@bawbjusbawb6471 people don't want truth nowadays they want to be rock to sleep by there sin
In the Book do Roman’s Paul calls homosexuality an “unnatural relation”. Pretty clear as day.
Well, the whole question is whether he as talking about homosexuality (as we understand it today) in that passage. That’s what the video is about 🤷♂️
He didn't call homosexuality that, he called whoredom to false gods that. Read up in Psalms 106, Paul is literally talking about the history of his own people, who were given the gospel first, and the commandments long before that. In Genesis 18, Sarah specifically refers to her ability to bare children as being the nature of a woman, in that she no longer had it. Romans 1 says they gave up the nature of a woman. Psalms 106 says they were committing whoredom to false gods and even sacrificing their children to them. There is a reason it says men and women worked together amongst themselves, because just as Leviticus 18 says, these sodomites were having sex with anyone and everything, out of their worship to their gods. In fact, throughout the whole Bible, this worship of false gods, sexual or not, was condemned as a whole. They literally coined one of the words used for "hell" from a valley that was notorious for being a place of worship unto the Canaanite god Molech(also referred to as the "shame of kings", referring to the fact that Israel's kings promoted the worship of this deity throughout their history). Molech was a bull god of fire, and one of the forms of worship was to toss things into fires on its altar, to include people(especially children). It would make sense to have a punishment being an eye for an eye, that such a sin be dealt with by an eternal fire that would destroy even their soul, hence such blasphemy being unforgivable.
Let us remember those who have died for justice; for they have given us life.
Help us love even those who hate us; so we can change the world.
- César Chávez
The bible is just a book, written by ancient men who had thoughts about a god and they wrote them down and unfortunately everyone took their thoughts way too seriously.
TYSM I just came out and my parents are very very christian and forbid homosexuality so I wanted comfort and I saw you ty for making me feel like I’m not wrong
Grace and peace.
Roman's 1:26-28
@@sonovgodz3902 Romans 1 is not about gays. That wouldn't even make sense in Paul's argument. Paul is trying to say all gentiles are sinners, so why would he pick on the ~3% of gay population to prove that 100% are sinners? Go look up what the ancient Romans were up to and then you'll appreciate Paul's real argument.
@@MusicalRaichu "why would he pick on the 3% of gays" whatt??? That's like saying why would he pick on the 5% that are murderers??? Like you said, he's calling out the gentiles on sin. And you have the mindset that he's picking on them. No, he's calling put sins. Plain and sinple
@@sonovgodz3902 Yes I see what you mean. What I'm trying to say is that Paul is making an argument that the gentiles of his time were sinners in a way that would convince his readers. He's talking about the majority of gentiles who at the time were indeed engaging in same-sex activities.
The Romans did not think in terms of sexual orientation but in terms of active and passive roles. Male Roman citizens had sex with anyone of lower status, male or female. The act was seen as boosting the man's masculinity while denigrating the passive partner. Married men regularly went to male prostitutes, abused male and female slaves and some even had sex with boys. And this is the majority of men, people we would consider heterosexual today, not just a tiny minority of people with same-sex orientation.
Go read up on Roman sexuality and you'll see that Paul's description fits it perfectly. His description fails to describe same-sex relationships based on sexual orientation, and certainly not mutually respectful ones. Romans 1 simply does not apply to the modern notion of homosexuality.
Technically, this doesn't make gay relationships right. It just means that Romans 1 cannot be used to condemn it.
Right when you were closing your argument, I got to a conclusion, and right at this very moment you said especifically what I thought. I feel like a lot of pieces finally fit together and my christian way has a new gust of fresh air. Literal chills. Thank you very much.
Grace and peace
Read your bible and pray about this. The above is in error.....26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:26-27
@@enigma4281 It's specifically because of reading that I can't believe God has any problem with homosexual relationships. What bad fruit does that bear? In fact, the original wording may have been mistranslated, considering that there was no concept of homosexuality as there is today. Doing some research, I found probable basis for translating the greek wording of the new testament more accurately to "child abusers". But still, I have to do more research.
Peace, grace and love.
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Matthew 7:15-20
@@MattPaes Hi! How may I get in touch with you? email ? social media?
Misinterpretation of the Greek.
Αρσενοκοίτης doesn't imply "boy molesting."
The Septuagint version of Leviticus translates 18:22 as "και μετά ΆΡΣΕΝΟΣ ου ΚΟΙΜΗΘΉΣΗ..."
Those words in caps are the words from which we get the word αρσενοκοίτης.
Paul is using a term that is believed to have been coined from THIS verse in the Spetuagint! Not from use within the Greco-Roman world.
If Paul wanted to say "boy molesters" he would have. If they were talking about "boy molesting" in Leviticus they would have used the Hebrew words נער or ילד, NOT זכר.
Out of all the texts within the Bible, these are among the MOST clear.
I mean that's what the video basically says when it comes to the linguistics 🤷♂️
The bigger question is what we should do with those verses in our current cultural moment.
Leviticus is about a man not taking a woman's role. The wording fails to be a prohibition of all same-sex activity. The reason why it's wrong is explicitly stated as something cultural related to idolatrous practices.
Paul may have been thinking of Leviticus when saying that, but then again it might be coincidental. Leviticus talks about some sexual sin involving males and 1 Corinthians talks about some sexual sin involving males. Obviously the words "male" and "going to bed" are going to crop up. When the two things are centuries apart in totally different cultures and arguably different continents, I think it's difficult to justify linking them without direct historical evidence.
Plus I'm not sure why you think it doesn't imply pederasty. It was practised at the time and involves males having sex. Unless you mean it implies more than just pederasty? Sure, add raping slaves and use of prostitutes (some of which were slaves forced into it), all bad stuff. If that was Paul's experience with same-sex practices, no wonder he spoke against it.
@@MusicalRaichu It is not about a man taking on a woman's role. I read Hebrew.
The verse says:
ואת זכר לא תשכב
Which literally means "You shall not lie with a male."
"With" - את
"male" - זכר
"not" - לא
"you shall lie" - תשכב
The next part:
משכבי אשה
משכבי refers to the place one lies down on, but it is used euphemistically to mean "lying with." Therefore it should be translated as "as lying with a woman" NOT "lying as if they were a woman" - that would be a whole different construction.
Evidence:
Numbers 31:17 "...every woman who has known a male/man by lying with him" - למשכב זכר
Judges 21:12 "...virgins who had not known a man by lying with him (literally "male") - למשכב זכר
Rashi specifically notes משכבי אשה means מכנוס כמכחול בשפופרת which is to say it means something like "inserts as a paintbrush into a tube." Certainly not the roll of a woman, usually.
Ibn Ezra has accepted this also as referring to homosexual intercourse in general, saying that it is forbidden here (Lev. 18:22) in both the standard and nonstandard way.
It is not wise to say that some homosexual activity is permitted because the wording "fails" to list all sexual activities because then the same could be said about the next verse. The next verse is about beastiality and uses words of the same root as the previous (שכבתך and משכב come from the root שכב).
There is also nothing in this chapter that indicates that this was forbidden because of related idolatrous practices. You are likely thinking about other verses that use similar language in ENGLISH. E.g. Deuteronomy 23:17 uses the words קדשה and קדש, which are translated to as "whore" and "sodomite" in the KJV, which may lead to some believing it is about homosexuality when in fact it is referring to cult prostitutes.
I meant that it doesn't imply pederasty exclusively. The word זכר (the word used in the verse) doesn't imply age or an age range.
Ibn Ezra writes: Thus, this commandment applies equally to a pederast and to a catamite.
Midrash Sifra - Kedoshim: Even a minor is implied.
Paul was well educated and, based on his writings, was familiar with classical Greek works, he would have therefore been familiar with a word like πεδεραστία which refers directly to pederasty. It makes little sense for him to use such a general word like αρσενοκοίτης when he could avoid confusion and use a Greek word that would have been well known in a world where pederasty was common.
The Septuagint (LXX) was written in Koiné Greek, EXTREMELY similar to the language of the New Testament. The term αρσενοκοίτης, the word Paul used, is rare and believed to have been coined DUE DIRECTLY to its use in the Septuagint. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament were very familiar with the LXX and would quote directly from it in their writings.
I wasn't just linking them, the link between them has been studied extensively.
The rarity of this word outside of Judeo-Christian contexts makes it harder to link it anything else, especially some supposed practice the Corinthians may have engaged in.
@@Caralaza sorry, i can't make sense of what you're trying to say about lev 18. the two interpretations of lev 18 i've seen are "do not lie with a male [as you] bed a woman" (most translations) or "do not lie with a male [in] a woman's bed".
the first would mean when you do it with a man, he should not take a woman's role, i.e. don't penetrate a man. the second would mean when you have your gay lover over, do it on your bed, not your wife's.
sorry i didn't explain, the reason stated for the prohibition is because it's "detestable", the word for which in the Pentateuch (and up to Kings) is specifically associated with practices of idolatrous nations and most often with idolatry itself. (In Proverbs it takes on a different nuance.) It's not inherently immoral, it is only cultural associations that make it an issue.
about pederasty, that's what i was saying. if it was only pederasty he was concerned about, he could have said so. but the lustful/exploitative practices of the time extended to beyond pederasty, so probably he used the word he did to include them all. or it could be taken more literally, those practising masculine sex (ie the masculine ideal in that culture), which would extend its meaning to those who exploit women as well as boys etc. or it could be paired with malakoi (men who are promiscuous with women) to mean men who are promiscuous with men or even women who are promiscuous with men.
as for your preferred interpretation, "believed to be based" means it's not conclusive. you should not base your morality on likelihoods and theories.
@@MusicalRaichu The second interpretation ("...in a woman's bed") is a somewhat literal interpretation since משכב refers to a place where one lays. However, the construct משכבי אשה makes it clear that this is a euphemism, since it is not used in this way elsewhere to mean "bed."
I gave those examples to show that this construction refers to "laying with" rather than "a bed."
If one wanted to say "in a woman's bed" the construction should be more like על משכב אשה (lit. upon a woman's bed). This is based on evidence (available upon request), not interpretation.
You're reading too deep into a very simple statement. This is why I mentioned the following verse. Lev. 18:23 says not to have intercourse (שכבת) with a beast, yet virtually nobody would argue that this means God permits all other sexual encounters with beasts, so long as they are not penetrative.
Do you believe God is accepting of human-beast sexual relationships so long as they are not penetrating each other?
It is against the Law to lie (שכב) unlawfully with a woman, does that mean that it is lawful for him to sexually do whatever to the woman, so long as it is not penetrative?
Is the way one lies with an אשה different from the way one would lie with a נערה or a בתולה?
There is no deep meaning to "as one lies with a woman," it is simply referring to sexual relations through the normative. It is a very simple and clear verse (one of the clearest) that has been understood for thousands of years.
It is written that a man (איש) shall leave his father and mother and cling to his WIFE (אשתו).
You would think if God were okay with non-penetrative homosexual relations, you would find it mentioned somewhere in the Bible. But no, one has to read something into Scripture that is not there (i.e. "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence *unless it is non-penetrative*")
The term "abomination" תועבה is not restricted to idolatry, even in the Pentateuch. Not all "abominations" were detestable due to their association with idolaters because then that would mean incest, adultery, and beastiality (all mentioned in Lev. 18) are not inherently "bad."
I wrote what I wrote regarding pederasty because you said that you weren't sure about what *I* meant when I wrote that the words זכר and αρσενοκοίτης don't imply pederasty.
I'm not basing my morality on likelihoods. I read the Bible for what it says. It says αρσενοκοίτης in 1 Corinthians which refers to "a male who lies with males." When I said "believed" I was referring to the coinage of the term αρσενοκοίτης itself, not to any moralistic beliefs.
"...or it could be taken more literally, those practising masculine sex (ie the masculine ideal in that culture)"
Αρσενοκοίτης does not mean "masculine sex" literally, it refers to a male who lies with males. I have yet to see it used for anything else.
Paul also had no reason to use it in that way in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as he already mentions: Sexually immoral (πόρνοι), adulterers (μοιχοί), and the effeminate (μαλακοί) *before* mentioning αρσενοκοίται.
Needing Rules to live by or Roles to play is a Developmental Stage.
Not a Spiritual requirement.
The Gospel was essentially bringing people who were used to Rules and Roles up a notch Developmentally into something less concrete. If you haven't reached this Developmental Stage, you're not going to understand or like it - no matter how many times or how many ways it is described (nor who describes it - like Jesus and Paul!).
If you still just _need_ Rules, find some you like and follow them.
And by that sword (Rules) that you use to condemn others, you will eventually find yourself condemned.
Then you'll see the need for something New...
You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV
This is so informative - I’ve been looking for something like this for ages! Could you perhaps make a similar video on certain bible quotes relating to women and their submission eg not talking in church, asking husbands to explain things, not holding positions of authority in church, etc? I’d love to hear your viewpoint! :)
Thanks. Check this one out :) th-cam.com/video/4VHvRltRjBc/w-d-xo.html
@@commonschurch This guy is knowingly or unknowingly twisting the Bible.Beware!Homosexuality has been condemned all the way from the beginning of the church so much so that St.John Chrysostom(an important church father-400 AD) is called a homophobe nowadays.It has been condemned in the old testament,in the new testament and by all church fathers(The early Christians saints)
@@evanssamuelbiju4315 its literally condemned in every world religion too, excluding new agey ones like bahai. This guy is spreading some very dangerous theology if he is telling people that the bible doesnt forbid it and condemn it.
If it’s from the Old Testament these laws have all been fulfilled. The New Testament is for our time.
@@evanssamuelbiju4315 that’s the church and man that prohibited it. Because they themselves hated it. U have to understand the languages and different meanings of the words.
Some people's treatment of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 focuses on the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai (the latter of which also appears in plural form in 1 Timothy 1:10), whom Paul says will not inherit the Kingdom of God. People argue that these words do not refer to monogamous same-sex relationships or “homosexuals” as some modern translations render the words. Instead, malakoi is ambiguous and could just mean “weak” or “soft” while arsenokoitai refers to some kind of sexual exploitation or pederasty (sex with post-pubescent children). But if that’s the case then why doesn’t Paul just use the Greek word for pederasty (or paiderastes)?
Keep in mind that before he condemns the malakoi and arsenokoitai for their persistence in sin, Paul condemns idolaters and adulterers and then he condemns thieves and greedy people. Adultery and idolatry are often associated in the Bible and thievery and greed certainly go together. This makes it likely that arsenokoitai goes hand-in-hand with malakoi. The fact that arsenokoitai matches the Greek words in the Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 20:13 is unmistakable. The word breaks down to “arseno” (or “male”) and koite (or “bed”) and literally means “man-bedder.”
Paul is saying that at one point some Corinthians practiced the active and passive roles in same-sex behavior but, as verse 11 says, “this is what some of you *used to be.* But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” Just because certain people once engaged in same-sex behavior that is no barrier to them being sanctified by the grace of God. God loves them and us and wants everyone to understand their true identities not as being “gay” or “straight,” but as being sons and daughters of the Most High.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers 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 . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
There are some interpreters today who object to lumping homosexuals in with the other sinners listed in this passage. The wording “men who have sex with men” is unclear, they say, and should not be construed as a condemnation of *all* same-sex activity. In an attempt to make *homosexual behavior* compatible with Christianity, they attempt to redefine the Greek word.
The phrase “men who have sex with men” (translated “homosexuals” in the NASB) is a translation of the Greek word *arsenokoitai.* Those who object to this translation say that arsenokoitai does not refer to all homosexual relationships but only to those involving abuse, coercion, or unfaithfulness. They say the word does not refer to “loving, faithful” same-sex relationships.
Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”-that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” And, truthfully, that’s all the information we need to understand the intent of 1 Corinthians 6:9.
As in English, the Greek word for “bed” can have both sexual and non-sexual meanings. The statement “I bought a new bed” has no sexual connotation; however, “I went to bed with her” does. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, koitai connotes an illicit sexual connotation-the apostle is clearly speaking of “wrongdoers” here. The conclusion is that the word arsenokoitai refers to homosexuals-men who are in bed with other men, engaging in same-gender sexual activity.
It is interesting to note that arsenokoitai was not a common word in the Greek language to refer to homosexuality. Some have even claimed that the apostle Paul invented the word. This is not the case. In the *Septuagint Greek translation* of the two verses in the Mosaic Law that refer to homosexuality both contain forms of arseno and koitai (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). This likely indicates that Paul had Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9, making it abundantly clear what Paul meant by the word arsenokoitai.
The notion that *some* homosexual relationships are accepted is not even hinted at in this passage. The men’s commitment level or the presence of “love” is not addressed. The idea that the condemned same-sex activity is linked to economic exploitation or abuse is also a forced reading with no textual basis.
Paul’s reference to “homosexuals,” together with a reference to “effeminate” men in the same verse (in the NASB), effectively covers both active and passive homosexual behavior. God’s Word is not open to personal interpretation in this matter. Homosexuality is wrong; it always has been, and it always will be.
Just two verses later, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says, “And that is what some of you *were.* But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added). This statement negates the idea of “homosexual Christianity” being acceptable to God. Paul tells the Corinthian believers that practices such as homosexuality were evidences of their former life before Christ. Now they have been *born again,* and they have a new nature and new desires. The old nature remains, and the temptations continue, but child of God has been called to fight against sin, not live in it any longer. By the life-changing grace of God, the Corinthians’ new life stands in opposition to the way they used to live.
Just curious what other words Paul could have used, which were in more common parlance. I'm sure the Ancient Greeks and Romans had plenty of them, so if Paul was writing to a contemporary church, why didn't he just use one of those?
Because homosexuality as an identity is a fairly recent invention the Greek words generally describe actions. So you get descriptions like male prostitute, or paederastoi. Paul uses, maybe even invents, a more general purpose term.
Yo is that swaggy jesus?
lol
Jail 💀
There is no evidence that Paul departs from the unanimous Jewish conviction that homosexuality was sinful. Since Paul cites the tradition, he evidently passes on and concurs with the tradition. Nor does it work to restrict Paul’s comments to pederasty, for the text contains a general proscription of homosexual acts, and does not specify relationships between men and boys. Paul does not refer to homosexual relations between men and boys. Instead, he specifically speaks of ‘males with males’ in Romans 1 verse 27. Furthermore, verse 26 demonstrates the implausibility of the pederasty thesis. There, same sex relations between females is proscribed, but there is no evidence that women and young girls engaged in same sex relations in the Hellenistic world. It follows, therefore, that in both verses 26 and 27 Paul speaks against homosexual relations in general, and the attempt to limit his words to pederasty fails.
If you get a chance to watch the video, I argue that Paul does hold to traditional Jewish teaching, and the pederasty theory is probably not accurate. I don’t think those are the best arguments to get to an affirming posture.
"Finding new ways to read nuance INTO the Bible is good??? Seriously? Finding and understanding nuances that exist are one thing but adding it where it doesn't exist is NOT good. You missed some significant cultural relevance and nuance of how the Hebrew language works. Surrounding verses (pretext and context) , similar verses and social understanding all play a huge role. Taking "a verse" and examining it by itself is equivalent to taking one sentence out of an entire speech.
As I said in the video the Hebrew is pretty clear forbidding any sexual intercourse between men. Not much nuance there. The issue is that we don’t take our sexual ethics from Leviticus for obvious reasons. And I am totally with you that examining one verse is problematic but that’s the whole point of the video. Proof texting is not helpful. Reading within the larger narrative of Jesus is the goal.
@@commonschurch maybe I'm misunderstanding you but your video makes it sound like today's homosexuality is somehow different because of societal norms, acceptance etc. and as a result we should somehow see homosexuality different.
@@commonschurch also... ethics, morals and laws are all very different. I would argue that Christians should only be concerned with morals. Ethics are manmade morals are from God.
Yes. But that was relating to the Greek New Testament sections.
@@commonschurch so I'm not misunderstanding, and that IS what you're saying?
Funny how so many people get hung up on the word "homosexuality", but they ignore its description in the Bible. The Bible is clear in what it says is acceptable sexuality. One man and one woman in marriage is the only acceptable thing according to God. All else is considered sexual immorality. When confronted with a woman caught in sexual immorality (adultery), Jesus says, "Go and sin no more." Not "well, keep committing sexual immorality because I love you". It was in his love that Jesus said to not sin anymore. If you love someone, you don't pander to that sin, you make them aware of it. You make a stance and say, "What your doing is sin, but I will still love you. But I will not condone your sinful actions anymore than I want my sinful actions condoned." That is love.
"Don't worship the Bible"
It is not "worshipping the Bible" to understand that it is God's inspired Word and that it is God's way of communicating with us. Ignoring what God shares with us is very much like telling your loving parents to shut up because you want to believe what you want to believe.
I can't find what you say in the Bible. There's no description of homosexuality and nothing that says 1 man + 1 woman is the only acceptable sexuality. I think you're reading things into the Bible that it doesn't say.
What you're saying has only been promoted for the last 30 or 40 years. What happened was that after the mistranslation in the RSV and then the mistake copied into other Bibles, Christians around the middle of last century started thinking that homosexuality was a sin. When research started showing that it was a harmless, natural variation and not harmful, Christians dug in their heels and started promoting the sorts of unfounded assertions that you're making. The purpose behind them was to justify their persistence in condemning something now known to be harmless and natural.
@@MusicalRaichu So what you are saying is nowhere in the Bible mentions homosexuality at all?
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:26-28
1 Corinthians 6:9
Jude 1:7
And nothing about 1 man and 1 woman in marriage being the only sexually moral option?
1 Corinthians 7:2
Hebrews 13:4
Mark 10:6-9
Matthew 19:4-6
Genesis 2:18
Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 11:11
Ephesians 5:31
Not even including the tons of verses that are directed at wives and husband and towards their spouses of the opposite sex, never the same sex. The very first marriage was Adam and Eve and God blessed them, ordaining the marriage and telling them to be fruitful and multiply the earth.
I have shown you several verses that show "husbands" and "wives" always to their opposites, never to the same sex. You have no such verse in the bible to support your claim. Which would mean that you are reading into the bible to try and support your claim, which is indefensible.
You do realize that we have the most manuscripts of any written original document ever for the bible in its Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, right? If you don't trust a translation you can go straight back to the original manuscripts and see what it says and also receive assistance from several source documents that point out the ancient culture and the meanings of things they said. So you can't use "translation error" as a valid argument.
Harmless? Where do you think the AIDS pandemic came from? If it was harmless, do you think Sodom and Gomorrah would have been glassed for it?
Natural? What makes it natural? Let me guess.. because animals do it? That's a very weak argument that is easily dismissed. Not even nature thinks its natural because it serves no purpose. You can't breed with it. It doesn't sustain your food needs, or anything else remotely useful. So natural? The evidence does not support your claim.
@@justintherhino6585 I stand by my statements.
The Bible mentions men doing it with men, but men have done that for reasons besides being homosecsual, and some homosecsuals have never had ssex. The Bible never talks about same-secs attraction. You need to distinguish the two concepts, especially when we come to the new testament, which you must be understood in terms of the assumptions of the era, not of the present day. The readers of Paul's letters did not live today, they lived in the first century.
The Bible describes marriage as between man and woman but there is no explicit definition" of marriage, nor is there any command or prohibition dictating the form marriage should take. It's not like God said "a man must only ever marry a woman or else it's a mortal sin". Marriage in Bible times was me going to some girl's father and paying for the right to have one of his daughters come and live with me. She didn't have a say in it. And I'm not to covet my neighbour's wife any more than his donkey. Or his car these days I guess.
Nor is the Bible a source of precedents for deciding right and wrong. A lot of behaviour is context-dependent anyway. Just because the apostles visited the temple on the Sabbath does not preclude us going to churches on Sunday or to youth groups on Friday afternoons. One lady warned my wife not to wear makeup because every instance in the Bible is associated with harlotry. You need to understand the underlying moral principles the Bible teaches, not treat it as a set of rules and precedents, useful as the latter may often be.
I can go on explaining the problems with everything you've said but it would take too long. All I can do is urge you to investigate all views on this issue (there are more than two) with an open mind and without preconceived ideas.
I will say that the change in the church's interpretation of a lot of texts was due to the mistranslation in the RSV (the original translators corrected it along with other amendments in the 2nd edition so yes it was a mistranslation). The following videos go into a lot more detail about this disaster came about. They're long but well worth watching, even if you don't agree with everything.
th-cam.com/video/MBwajcvZtqw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/3JTBpomMH5c/w-d-xo.html
This is not an academic issue but a grave and personal one for many people. People still suffer, they are still needlessly pushed away from the gospel of grace, kids are still being kicked out onto the street, the church is still being disgraced, all as result of this error.
There are so many southern churches that need to hear you man.
Romans 1:26-27 has: "And likewise also the males, leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their craving for one another...".
I'm just making the point that even though the word "homosexual" doesn't appear in the bible, we have a fairly accurate description. And I think there is room to reject Paul, if one so desires. Weren't David and Jonathon getting it on in the OT ? So IMO there are built-in contradictions present.
Paul is absolutely describing certain same-sex actions that were common in his era. I don't think anyone is disputing that, at least not this video. What he is not describing is a sexual orientation, the way we use the word homosexual today. He also does not have contemporary homosexual relationships in view when he describes those specific sexual acts.
The relationship between David and Johnathon is speculative at best. Some have suggested it was a lover's relationship. But that is not conclusive.
Where are you getting this from? Can you name the actual scripture instead of saying "in the text?"
The two main verses I referred to here are Lev 18:22 and Rom 1:27 but those are pretty easy to just go and look up. The bigger more important question though is how do we understand them in light of the whole text of scripture.
@@ronneff5894 We can go deeper into the text when we compare these two verses to the whole of Scripture. The wrong question is what does the Bible say about homosexuality. The right question is what does the Bible say about marriage. From the first pages of Genesis, the first marriage is broken by sin. The wedge between man and woman mirrors the chasm between humans and God. Almost every story thereafter is about the breakdown in marriage: Abraham and Sarah, Lot and his wife, Issac and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel. There is theme here being developed. You hit the nail right on the head, this theme points to God's love for people. It's a symbol like the rainbow or the water from a rock. The thing is the symbol is more than a representation, it's a promise, an oath. God does not take oaths lightly, and wedding vows that distort God's love are far more harmful than people realize.
Dr. Michael Brown, a Hebrew scholar, completely dismantles CC's linguist argument. It's just wrong in every way and leans into his interpretation of ancient culture to read into the text what he wants to find.
You can't do that. He also ignores the many texts in the Bible that says sex is only permitted within marriage, and marriage is between a man and a woman.
So even if CC is correct, that only makes the Bible silent on homosexuality... Except if you look outside the two verses he wants you to pay attention to, and only pay attention to, homosexuality is implicitly condemned.
Here's Dr. Brown's linguistic analysis: th-cam.com/video/q8VSWqekpCY/w-d-xo.html
So you’re saying people didn’t understand the Bible until now?
Homosexuality still shouldn't be a personality trait.... I don't wanna be defined by who I love...
I don’t know your perspective (if your gay or straight), but the only reason homosexuals are defined by their sexuality is because society didn’t (some still don’t) look to them as normal. If it was normal, it wouldn’t be a big deal, but the sole reason it defines them is because it’s considered different from heterosexuality. The same goes for racism. People identify with their race solely because they’ve faced discrimination or clashing ideologies in their lifetime. If people truly didn’t want to be defined by their race or sexuality, then we would have to end the thought of people being different because of how they look, act, etc, but that is not the case, even if you don’t want to admit it (assuming your coming from the perspective I’m perceiving you to be).
@@jacobbreedlove543 I'm gay af. I just don't think you have to dress, talk, or act "gay" to be gay. The only thing that makes you gay is liking the same sex. By "dressing/talking gay" you tell het people that we're not trying to be normal and it's seen as attention seeking (from an outside perspective). We are normal people trying to just live our lives. The only thing different is who we love, and yet there's still a whole "gay culture" which doesn't really make sense...
You don't have to be gay to like a certain thing, thus you don't have to like a certain thing to be gay. Hell, my dad is a crossdresser and is very straight. For years he thought that since he liked to dress up, that he must be gay because it's "a gay thing". I know that that was what society viewed as gay, and we adopted it, but it's definitely NOT a gay thing and we should say that. Straight women can wear flannels, have short hair, etc. Straight men can crossdress, wear makeup, etc.
My point is, being gay is not a fashion choice. It's not a personality trait and I'm tired of it being used that way. My brother is also gay, and he has this constant pressure to be feminine because of it. He's a normal teenage boy, that just so happens to like boys.
If we want to actually be accepted, then we need to stop being so damn loud, annoying, and weird. No one is going to take a person wrearing a rainbow speedo and rainbow suspenders seriously, and it makes the whole movement look like a joke. In places where we already have rights, we don't need a whole damn parade or month, it just feels like we're (again) trying to get attention, which (again) reflects badly on us. Pride parades in places where being gay is illegal, sure, I 100% support that. But if you keep complaining where you already have rights, it's just going to make others annoyed, no? We need to show people that we're not annoying or want everything our way. We don't want to stand out, we just wanna love who we love.
Being gay can be part of your personality and still not define you. It's not your personality that defines you, it's your relationship to Jesus. No matter what your sexuality is, it doesn't have to define you if you don't want it to, that goes for all your personality traits. But I encourage you, no matter what your sexuality may be, to identify with Jesus, and to live with love as Jesus did :3
@@itsthatonechickagaincallth7843 We can love anyone,but we cannot sex the same gender...sex is to produce baby
Homosexuality has always been in the bible. God made Adam and eve, FOR REPRODUCTION as he said ,go forth and multiply, same sex can't do that. Jesus said, man, do not lay with a man as with a woman. He mentioned it twice in the new testament,the last time in revelation where he is explicit, homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of god. It is to dishonour god to say HE created homosexual, you are saying he made people this way,why? when he said it is an abomination. People around a child made homosexuality.
Certainly procreation was part of the design for male/female relationships but my kids are adopted because my wife and I couldn’t procreate. And yet I haven’t met many heterosexuals that are particularly threatened by our marriage 🤷♂️
@@commonschurch This is a typical response from pro homosexuals, A MEDICAL complaint does not justify homosexuality. YOU could if not for the PHYSICAL impediment,low sperm count, weak sperm, you cannot use this sort of thing to justify homosexuality.,shows you have no argument but insist you are right.
I mean gay couples do have a PHYSICAL impediment to procreation too 🤷♂️ the point is very few people would actually argue that procreation is the sole purpose for sexuality.
@@commonschurch They do NOT have a physical impediment,it is EMOTIONAL, they are made by the people around them. WHY is the whole world male/female if procreation no the reason for our existance?vegetation animals, fish,EVERY life is this way. We are also here to have a relationship with God.
I could have sex with someone who else and make a baby. But I don’t want to. I love my wife. You could say I have an emotional attachment to her. That’s how it goes. You fall in love and you make it work. Sometimes it’s not always what you expected or what someone on the internet thought was cool but you do your best.
The Leviticus passage only gets "complicated" when you try to defend homosexuality when it is everywhere condemned in Scripture and no where commended. You're being deceptive.
I think it’s the other way around. Leviticus is easy to deal with if you’re defending homosexuality, because we don’t take any of our sexual ethics from that book. Leviticus is complicated if you’re trying to defend the idea that homosexuality doesn’t exist in the Bible, which as I said in the video, I don’t think is a complete argument.
@@commonschurch Homosexual sexual practice, of all types, is everywhere condemned in Scripture whenever it is addressed- explicitly and implicitly- only a darkened mind and perverted heart scheme to make it otherwise. At least have the Intellectual integrity to either believe the Bible or outright reject it, as almost everyone on both sides of this issue does, and stop trying to defend the indefensible from the sacred text. You will answer to a Holy God for it.
C. M. Granger foolish
@@cryaboutit6448 Your comment is free of content, therefore it can safely be ignored. Thanks
C. M. Granger your bible is free of content, therefore it can be ignored.
This is so misleading! People please read your Bible stop Turing to people who are telling you what you wanna hear! God’s word is God’s word no matter what!! If you are not living right ( any shape or form) God will tell you but we as people still wanna do what ever we want to do and want Him to approve of it. No it doesn’t work that way
What kind of Bible do you talk about when all of them were interpreted by other authors in different time period
The Holy bible period!!
@@logancutora9553 what different authors please do share. Every Holy Bible I pick up has the same authors. I no some Catholic bibles have additional books and other cults
Girl people don’t choose to be gay so if it’s I the Bible that it’s a sin that makes absolutely no sense.
I am a follower of Jesus, and a HUGE Bible nerd, and also a very proud gay man. Though, for a long time I was mostly uncomfortable even approaching these passages, but listening to what you had to say really helped me and really developed my faith in God. I was questioning whether or not I should be celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven because I trust God and I trust that He loves me more than I love myself, so that He has my best interests in mind. But what you are talking about makes WAY more theological sense. So I thank you for helping me clear up some of the misconceptions I had on this topic, and really solidifying my views as an affirming follower of Jesus :3
Here's a video that might help. It approaches the topic from the point of view of someone who is gay themselves and seeks to follow Jesus.
th-cam.com/video/zW5ZZtdziwU/w-d-xo.html
Better to marry than to burn with lust. If you join with your soulmate, be blessed.
The hebrew translation is “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.” the word "lieth" means to lay with someone usually on a bed but for Sexual purposes. Look it up for yourself always and ask God for guidance always.
Yes it says if a man lies with a male as with a woman. That fits well with homosexuality being alive and well, and just a particular practice being regulated. Of course to assess the applicability of that regulation today, you need understand why it was regulated, why there was such a strong cultural taboo about that way of doing it, and whether the same implication would be drawn today.
You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV. Should do historic research
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. So do you believe that God blesses same sex marriage?
LOVE this so much! I wish we as Christians would actually think for ourselves and do the research instead of just believing someone else’s interpretation on a text. As long as you believe that Jesus is Lord, He died on the cross, rose from the grave, and is coming back YOU. ARE. SAVED! So much fighting and exclusion going on in the effort to be “right” and prove others are wrong. I pray for that the eyes of our understanding would be opened before our Lord returns!
Well, it’s because your last statement is wrong, that makes this topic so important. Jesus said “you shall love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself, on these two hang all the law and the prophets.” How do we love God? Jesus said “If you love me, obey my commandments. Then you will abide in my love as I abide in the father’s love.” So you see how Salvation is not merely from hell but from sin. As the angel Gabriel told Mary when Jesus was born “call his name Jesus (God’s Salvation) for he shall save his people from their sins.”
So we must also work out our Salvation with fear and trembling, and we cannot do that without knowing exactly what the commandments of God are, and the will of the father.
So obviously we SHOULD exclude sin and anyone else who encourages transgressing the law of God. The question is...
IS homosexuality a SIN???
So as long as I believe in Jesus I can do whatever I like and be saved?
There is more then that. The demons know this thing. They know who God is they live with him. A believer not only believes but has a relationship with Jesus. Knowing of his existence is not going to cut it, but trusting in him AND HIS WORD is want a believer is. Read Roman, while read the gospels and Paul’s letters and pray to God for wisdom.
Steve: We should do the research instead of just believing someone's interpretation.
Also Steve: ::believes someone's interpretation::
@@timwebster833 no
The original version was man shall not lie with boy
No. It’s not that simple. And I address that in the video.
I appreciate the insight you provided in this video and I really hope this was the way things were supposed to be. I'm not homophobic and in fact want to actively support it through evaluation. My closest friend is bisexual, and she draws me closer to Jesus despite her not being a Christian. I hate to see the stigma around homosexuality becoming a barrier for her. But I hear people saying someone's homosexuality got eradicated through faith. Testimonies like these make me question how that would've happened, and wand to hear what is your view on that, or how would you explain that?
This recent video explains a lot of the issues
th-cam.com/video/oRVREnnKMPQ/w-d-xo.html
I want bisexual christian women
@@JohnPeter-wk8sz lol . stop it.
For me, it is pushing gays and lesbians from God and certainly does not represent love in any way shape or form. If gays and lesbians can fulfil Jesus greatest commandments then what is the problem? On these 2 commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Who is God? God is Love!
We are supposed to be reborn and flee from sin. Applies to all
Professing to be wise they became fools. The confusion is based on the lack of calling and speaking about the matter in plain language. That is, what is really going on. It is not "Love" whom you want. Homosexuality is not love in the eyes of God, but rather, "degrading passions." God created male and female with an express fleshly capacity to "be fruitful and multiply" along with the needed complementary organs to accomplish the command. He also put within the system of our bodies the needed ability to expel or defecate the toxic matter after nourishment has been accomplished. It is why Paul, in Romans speaks of the "shameless act." Hence the reason that God calls a man lying with a man, as like with a woman (copulation) as an abomination. Therefore, if a rose by another name would smell as sweet, a BH by any other name (such as love) would still stink. But no one wants to be real. and I understand why. It matters not if it is adults or boys. the "act" itself is an abomination. it stinks and in other words, it is violence to the body. It is a perversion of the natural function of the body. All of your professions of "wisdom" makes you a fool.
Amen!!! ❤
Keep preaching the truth! The devil wants to confuse and tear apart, thank you for shedding light to show we should LOVE each other!
That's what he's doing. trying to ok something that is clearly condemned jn the bible.
@@LuisRamirez-vv4dk no
@@devanplays3509 Yeah thats what hes doing.
If hes oking homoseuxality. Hes not spreading the truth
@@LuisRamirez-vv4dk What's wrong with that? His informing us about the misconceptions of homosexuality in the Bible. Don't act as if you personally wrote the Bible, it can be interpreted in many ways.
The Bible says God is the same yesterday today and forever. In other words. We should not try to bend the scriptures to fit the culture. We bend our culture to fit God's standards. Homosexuality is condemned in multiple parts of the Bible. And by telling people they do not need to forsake their sin and follow Jesus. you make the word of God of none effect and risk condemning their souls to hell. All sin is evil and everyone has sind including myself. Instead of petting our sin we need to confess it and forsake it. If God changed like man does then none of the word of God is reliable. The main goal of the Bible is to save souls. But if you do not teach people that their sins condemned them to hell. then they will never confess their sins therefore never accept God into their hearts. And by doing that you condemned them. You call yourself merciful but you are not. Mercy is not me affirming you. It is me stopping you from falling into hell.
We're always bending Scripture to fit the culture. We don't ask women to wear head coverings. We don't stone disobedient children. The question is how we adapt scripture in ways that are faithful to the larger narrative. God may not change but clearly our perception of God and how God has interacted with the human story have changed.
As the Bible itself says. "They wrestle the scriptures to their own destruction" Another thing too you are putting precious souls at risk. If a person does not confess their sins they do not get saved.
God made sacrifices for us. We should do the same for Him. The whole religion of Christianity is one of sacrifice.
You are so right here God is the same and has not changed. His word isn't just a good idea to "try" and follow, it is our life. Heaven and earth shall pass away but His word shall never pass away. We must live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. It isn't bending the word like one said here, to recognize some specific instructions were given to specific churches in a specific culture. In ancient times the married woman covered her head as a sign of marriage. Much the way in today's culture we wear wedding rings. The women were commanded not to remove their head covering while speaking in church because they are still under their husbands leadership. Today it would be just as wrong for a woman to stand up to speak in church and remove her wedding ring. As far as stoning people... this person obviously only half reads their bible. Jesus made it clear when He said no one sows a piece of new cloth into an old garment or puts new wine into old wine skins. He made it clear that the old covenant was passing away and He was ushering in a new one. So no...we don't stone people anymore. However we also don't bend God's word which clearly condemned homosexuality (as it is today). More on this in a comment to all addressing this video.
I think you're agreeing with me. Culture has changed and so has the way God interacts with humanity. Some commands were for specific churches and specific times. The old covenant was passing away and he was ushering in a new one.
Watching in 2021, can't wait for this to be released!!
Why are you saying homosexuality doesn't mean homosexuality when homosexuality is real? It's the equivalent of saying that the word woman doesn't mean woman when there are clearly women in the world?
I've been researching at what people have thought through the ages on this topic.
John Chrysostom was only 3 centuries after Paul and he pretty much expanded on Romans 1: men ignored the women they had and engaged lustfully with men, and added that the prostitutes they went to were making themselves women. He's pretty much interpreting Paul in line with the culture of those times: the active party was lustful and the passive party was shaming themselves by taking the female role.
After the church decided that sex was bad and only reluctantly allowed it between husband and wife to have babies, same-sex acts became wrong, not inherently because they were of the same sex but because they were inherently non-reproductive.
Soon the concept of sodomy came about, which generally meant poking it in the wrong hole. A man penetrating a man was wrong not inherently because they were of the same sex but because sorry for being crude he didn't have the right type of hole. Paul's passages were understood to be about the perceived sin of sodomy, after all why else would two men having sex be wrong?
In modern times when the RSV mistranslated those greek words and set off a nightmare that's persisted to the present day, they were using popular beliefs of the time that homosexuality was a disorder.
In all cases, people were interpreting the Bible through the lens of their own culture. Only Chrysostom's views seemed to coincide with the original culture, yet even he is cited as teaching the modern view.
That raises the question, when did the approach of understanding the Bible through the eyes of the original readers become the hermeneutic norm? (Well, the norm except when it comes to issues like homosexuality or women's rights.)
@Brent Braxston sorry didn't notice your reply. your logic is correct. my impression is that chrysostom did think that both men bedding men and women bedding women was always lustful. don't forget the typical examples he had of the former in his era, and without knowing what we know today, it's easy for him to make the mistake he did.
we don't know paul's complete attitude apart from the few things he says. unlike chryso, paul only mentions males, not females. it was males bedding males, not women bedding women, who were doing hurtful things in graecoroman society, and i think paul's concern was to promote loving one another and let other things follow from that.
people like to extrapolate from paul's minimal statements his attitude to all same secs acts, but arguing from silence is unreliable. we have to rely on what scripture God in his wisdom and grace has provided, which as we now know are supportive of loving same-secs relationships. it's entirely possible that paul had a different view which was not passed down to us by providence.
in any case, iirc the point i was trying to make is that historically, people seem to have consistently interpreted this particular issue through the lens of their particular cultural mores and mindset instead of seeking to understand the sparse comments on it in scripture in terms of what they meant to their original readers.
While society changes, God's word never will
@@silentghost751 It doesn't. How we interpret it or what we read into it does.
The church didnt make up that sex is meant for the context of marriage, Jesus affirmed that himself.
@@grod8888 What the church made up is that secs should only be for making babies. They called other ways of doing it so-do-my. Since two men or two women can't make a baby, that's why for many centuries they thought it must be a sin. But many now accept that it has other legitimate purposes.
Did Jesus or anyone in the Bible ever raise the issue of premarital secs? I'm not aware of it. correct me if I'm wrong but Jesus only spoke of faithfulness in marriage, not about secs generally.
Regardless, the church needs to take responsibility and rethink the issue properly from scratch without relegating its responsibility to a search for precedents in the Bible - which don't even exist, and those that do are based on radically different cultural contexts.
You have big problems in your theology.
Go on…
There will always be an intellectual to break down scripture to satisfy the itchy ears of those living in sin. Jesus does not condemn us for the appetite of temptation nor does He approve of us sitting at the buffet of sin. Marriage is the only time sexual relations are allowed and they are only allowed between a man and a woman. (And yes, I did listen to the whole video and there was really no evidence given -- only his interpretation of scripture.
The real point. Gay activity means fewer taxpayers for the state coffers, less cannon fodder for endless wars, fewer diamond rings for cupcake and no grandkids for mommy and daddy. Homophobia is a human invention and is way more important of an issue for selfish humans than it ever was for the authors of the Bible. How otherwise did a few nebulous lines from outside of the Gospel become such a divisive and obsessive issue among Christians? Jesus even said in Mark 19, to those for whom this message is intended, some are eunuchs (non breeders) from birth, some made so by man, and some choose it for the sake of the kingdom. This reading of homophobia into the Bible is entirely the work of self serving people who are uncomfortable with the idea that their children will not reproduce as they did, and their will be no grandkids to pay for mommy and daddy's social security.
@@ronneff5894 That's a very thorough reply and I hate to give a much shorter reply, but I think it's sufficient to say that much of your understanding of this issue is based on one of the English translations. I could be mistaken, maybe you are a Hebrew and Greek scholar, but I don't think your understanding of the Bible's "position" on the issue is really as fixed as the common establishment seems to think it is. This is only valid anyway to those who believe that scripture is a specific legal code, in which case we must take some care to make sure that we enforce it impartially. Which leads to the conclusion that nobody is worthy of their own merit to inherit the kingdom. We are made worthy through Jesus Christ, despite our many transgressions (of whatever nature you interpret from the legal code). So if you believe that your understanding of scripture is profound enough to permit you to pronounce what is sinful on part of other people, I would presume you also understand that you must forgive if you hope to be forgiven. In other words, simply put, instead of clinging to a human interpretation of a legal code, like scribes and Pharisees, let's read a little way past the book of acts and just try to be kind to each other, and love God. Those are our sole duties, after all.
So being gay is not a sin???
No cuz The word homosexual was never in the bible. It was only in the bible after 1947. The original word translates to pedophile.
If being gay was as big of a deal to God or Jesus as many Christians portray, it'd be a huge oversight not to include it. The English translations of the Bible have been "tainted" over time due to the simple fact that they are translated.
Even if someone maintains that the Bible is the final authority and the Word of God, those manuscripts have been examined and changed by humans, meaning these translations are not immune to the bias and imperfection of humans.
Judging by cultural context, homosexuality was most likely not condemned (as we know it today--two consenting adults wanting to be in a loving monogamous relationship).
Howlin Mad what verses?
The Dead Sea Scrolls do show remarkable consistency with the Masoretic texts (10th C AD) which our English Old Testament is translated from so they are an important discovery in text critical studies but they are unrelated to the Christian New Testament.
@@cmgoodrich2093 u seem to not know how we got the bible
Jesus did not give an ethic of love to get behind.
Jesus didn't know what ethic meant.
Jesus never existed. He's a myth resembling many other myths,
which were going around South Western Asia for centuries.
There is ZERO historical evidence on the existence of a person called Jesus.
So, your argument is based on what you would like to believe and NOT on what was actually there.
You only know Jesus from the bible and from no-where else.
As bible is NOT to be trusted historically, you should be more sceptical and less accepting.
While I’m not convinced that the historical Jesus did not exist (see Bart Erhman‘s book on the topic) It is important to note that a theological level most scholars gave up the pursuit of the historical Jesus in the early 20th century. Every attempt ended in a Jesus that looked very much like the scholar in question. So in that sense you’re right, the only Jesus we’re dealing with is the textual Jesus of the gospels.
Can someone please help me out, I’m genuinely trying to find the definite answer of “is homosexuality accepted by God or not?”
I feel like I probably missed the main answer in the video...
Ok np, so the video talks about whether the word homosexuality was always in the Bible, but the Bible still speaks out against homosexual actions in the original versions of the Bible. This guy is also arguing that not all homosexual actions are immoral, but only those that are dehumanizing. This is not true however, because in Romans 1:26-27 the Bible clearly condemns the action of a man with a man or a women with a women. So the definite answer is that it is not accepted by God.
you might wish to consider the discussion on this channel
th-cam.com/channels/vxHn5v4XXNPdugStF3l6BQ.html
@┏┳┛ that's a common misconception. I have not been able to find any statement in the Bible that says that. there's an obsoslete prohibition on feminizing a male, a description of pagan excesses and a word whose meaning is disputed. none of them say "all same secs acts are not allowed" or anything like that.
also homasexualty is a trait you have, not something you engage in. maybe you're thinking that two people of the same secs shouldn't go to bed, which would impact what homasecsual people would naturally want to do, but "engage in homosecsualty" itself is a meaningless statement.
@┏┳┛ i'm afraid it's those who claim that it's a sin that are twisting the bible and hurting innocent people.
leviticus tell men not to do it with a guy in the same way they do it woman. it's only about a man not poking it in another guy (the latter taking a woman's role), not a ban on all same-secs acts. that would have to say "men don't do it with men (at all), women don't do it with women" which it does not say.
and the new testament references are about male-bedders. no one knows what that means . even if it's something to do with men doing it with men, what is the connotation? is it a ban on loving relationships where people are doing nothing to hurt anyone and in fact doing something that is beneficial to the relationship? or is it denouncing some of the exploitative and indecent practices that were happening in that part of the world at the time?
please stop trying to make a sin justifiable by twisting the holy bible. the sin i'm talking about is discriminating against and oppressing a minority group that you haven't bothered to take the trouble to understand.
@@MusicalRaichu I feel like he twisting apples and oranges it condemed it but only one way” the Bible explocitly says sexual and marriage relations to be between man and woman , so anything outside of that would be outside of Gods definition, the definition is clear and can’t be shaken soo idk what the world ur talking about 😭
Is Leviticus 20:13 not clear enough?
"If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; their blood is upon them"
I mean, there’s a lot in Leviticus. And if you’re following all of those rules more power to you.
@@kimbanton4398 Leviticus 20:13 very clearly talks about a *man* ("wə·’îš", translating to "and a man") lying with a *male* (zā·ḵār). Not about a man lying with a boy.
Also, I'm not worshipping the book, for I am not even Christian. Doesn't matter. You're purposefully lying about its contents to suit your own belief system, which stems from the consumption of humanist, liberal, western media.
@@kimbanton4398 That one is addressed in the video. It's not the Hebrew for boy.
However, we generally do not take our ethics without a filter from Leviticus.
@@commonschurch What about Romans 1:27?
What about Matthew 19:5, in which Jesus reaffirms that marriage is between a man and a woman?
What about Mark 7:21-23? Was homosexuality not considered to be "sexual immorality" in 20-30 AD Judea, where, as far as I know, it was outlawed?
If Jesus was indeed *not* referring to homosexuality when talking about broad sexual immorality, why did he not specify so? Why didn't he clarify that the rule he outlined does not apply to an activity which was commonly considered to be deviant at the time?
@@literallyme177 Well, that's what this video is all about. How should we interpret these verses in the light of their cultural context and the revelation of God in Jesus.
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 KJV
It's misused and misinterpreted
What’s the true translation of Roman’s 1 26-27
Just curious, if homosexuality is not a sin
There’s not really a lot of debate about the translation of that passage. If you get a chance to watch the video it talks about how translation isn’t the issue as much as cultural bias.
@@commonschurch could you find the original translation of Roman’s 1 26 27 please
@@commonschurch like maybe find a 1800’s German Bible for the translation
Unfortunately I don’t have any old German bibles or speak German but I can read Greek and the basic translation of Rom 1.26-27 in most modern Bibles is sound. That said it’s helpful to note that “natural” phusikos in Greek is not an argument from biology but one from social order.
@@commonschurch if translation isn’t the issue, then that would mean cultural bias wouldn’t have had any impact on the translation so bringing it up is meaningless. Plus, western cultures were built on the backbone of Christianity so whatever cultural bias you want to point at was created by these very passages which you just said don’t have an issue in their translation.
So bizarre that god would have given such cryptic language and subject to interpretation. That's more confusing than then not giving anything at all. If there is a god then she should come down and give laws clearly for all to understand.
Only if you have an imagination of Scripture being some form of divine dictation and transcription. If you choose to understand sacred texts as the gathered wisdom of the community collected and redacted over time you can trace movements and narratives that unfold as human history does pointing us toward the ongoing revelation of God.
@@commonschurch Your reply is just as cryptic as the scriptures you follow.
Joseph Scala not taking sides, but, good one.
@@josephscala6707 I tend to agree with this video and I chuckle at some of this guys other replies, but I have to agree this reply was ridiculous!
I don't imagine God can have a sexual orientation.
Using the Bible as a weapon is bad. Just what Jesus tried so hard to tell us.
@┏┳┛ that's what people using the bible as a weapon are doing. the idea that you can read the bible literally and conclude that all same secs behaviour including loving relationships are wrong is one of the biggest "twists" i've seen.
I like this video. Do you know where I can find more about people getting the sentence of death as opposed to actually being put to death, like you mentioned at 4:40?
Naomi Wolf ran into this in her latest book www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/24/naomi-wolf-admits-blunder-over-victorians-and-sodomy-executions
Having a low view of Scripture erodes the very foundation of the Christian faith.
What about having a high Christology? Is that not a better measure?
Christ and His Word will always be in agreement. Jesus is, after all, the Word incarnate (John 1). Failure to preserve the integrity of the biblical text dishonors and misrepresents Christ. The means by which one is able to come to know Christ in the first place is through the gospel, which is explicitly laid out in Scripture and is the climatic good news for fallen mankind that all of Scripture points to and is in harmony with. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training with righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” I admit that I have a lot to learn in regards to the original languages and I did enjoy listening to your thoughts, but verses like Romans 1:26-27 make it hard for me to believe that categorizing homosexuality as a sin is merely a translational error, as the ESV puts it- “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
The main point of this video is that homosexuality is not a translation error as much as a category error. Paul is describing what we might call homosexuality but he doesn’t have in mind the broader category of monogamous committed homosexual relationships we understand today. Also 2 Tim is not talking about the Christian canon when it talks about scripture. It’s talking about the Hebrew Scriptures.
Oh My!!! You are so right! We are living the last days that instead of people reading the word themselves and knowing Jesus themselves, they turn to others that are leading them astray Lord have mercy!!
arsenokoitai < it's really that simple
So helpful. Thank uou
Praise YAHUSHA HAMASCHIACH. Thank you brother. Good video!
Shalom! Praise Yah.
i'm having trouble seeing how they say arsenokoites is based on the words in leviticus. there may be an implicit similarity of patriarchal values, but the word itself is only superficially similar. the problem is that it says not to lie with a male as you bed a woman. to combine "male" the object of one clause with the verb "bed" of a separate clause would create a misleading combination because "male" is not the object of "bed".
I don't think this is particularly important, but I was wondering if you have any thoughts.
I think it’s plausible that Paul is pulling the language from there. He uses the Hebrew Scriptures in a lot of “inventive” ways. That said, I don’t think the issue is parsing the works as much as trying to understand what Paul is imagining when he writes. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a conservative Jewish man living in the Greco Roman world to condemn homosexuality as exploitative. I think if Paul had time today he would see the world differently. After all this was a man who couldn’t quite get his head around a world without slavery but I don’t think he would advocate for going back if he saw our world today.
@@commonschurch actually i've reconsidered. "arsenokoites" is probably against the dangerous practice of using "arsenic" during "coitus" as a contraceptive. very cruel for a man to force his wife to do that.
@Commons Church There's a video about 2 hours long in 2 parts featuring a lady in front of a chalkboard, picking apart the committee that first introduced the word homosexual to an English Bible translation. She also picked apart every single clobber verse. Epic. But I'm having trouble finding it. Do you happen to know this lecture?
I haven't seen that one but I'd be interested if you do find it.
@@commonschurch Don't know if it's the same one but if it's the one I'm thinking of the updated version is two videos each two hours long but I found it well worth the time.
th-cam.com/video/MBwajcvZtqw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/3JTBpomMH5c/w-d-xo.html
@@MusicalRaichu , you are awesome. 💙💜♥️
Unclobbering the Tangled Mess really makes me believe non-affirming churches just fell for the wrong translation.
♥️🧡💛💚💙💜
@@celestebehret2681 At the time the mistranslation was published and even for a while later, people did not understand homosexuality as much as we do now. Even now our understanding is incomplete, e.g. we don't know how or why it happens.
Given lack of understanding, I don't think it's surprising that people came to the conclusion it was perverted, evil and disgusting, especially when you read the Bible saying it's wrong. The majority of people are straight and to most of them the thought of it makes them cringe.
The real problem is that as our understanding grew, Christians were left behind. If the Bible says it's wrong, who cares what science says, right? Just like some still believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old based on what the Bible says in spite of undisputable evidence to the contrary. There are warnings in the Bible about not straying from God's revealed path, and if scientific discovery says something contrary to what we've concluded, well it's understandable some people will reject the evidence in front of them and stick to their interpretation of the Bible.
@@MusicalRaichu , yes. That's why I love the lens saying that the original Bible only condemned molesting, abuse, rape etc.
There are LGBT+ people out there who think they can't be who they are and still be Christian. There are denominations who attack saying that LGBT+ people CAN'T be Christian. I adore the scholarship that says God never condemned your orientation to begin with.
I also find harmony with "a day representing an aeon" for Creation, and the singing of the spheres picked up by our space program, all compatible. Big Bang or Narnia's song, does it matter? Madeline L'Engle farandolae worshipping the Lord from within the mitochondria... All compatible. 💙
Do you want to risk your eternal life over lust
I think sexuality is incredibly important and lust can be a destructive force but I don’t think a caring God would ever doom someone to eternal torment over it. In fact, I trust God is at work saving us from all that is unhealthy.
@@commonschurch we are slave's to sin some more than others but Jesus set's you free but some people don't want nothing got to do with Jesus. There is nothing in sexuality or lust for anyone but there is satisfaction in resisting it. You become a spiritual person. A pervert who has never entertained their sexuality is an honourable person and is same for all people. It's only negative stuff make's you think negatively the stench of flesh where pure thought should be. God will destroy it
Wait but, I thought the original word that Arsenokoite was translated to in English (since the term "homosexuality" did not exist back then) was "abusers of themselves with mankind." Either that or "sodomite." Did it really say "boy-molesters?"
It depends on what translation you are looking at. The English translations tended toward abusers of themselves, the German, Swedish and Norwegian translations tended toward abusers of boys.
I'm going to agree with you, as I don't see how "boy-molester" came into the picture. KJV Bible uses the descriptive of a "sodomite"(one who defiles/abuses self with mankind). But it also has sodomite defined as a "male temple prostitute". The closest thing I see that relates to boy's and sex, is the descriptive used for a "catamite"(effeminate), which were boys kept for sexual purposes, either for personal use, or to entertain guests.
But either way, "homosexuality" isn't what was being condemned. The Bible condemned idolatry in all forms, but "whoredom" to false gods was a predominant issue back then.
Yup, totally confusing, haha. And remember when Abusers-of-themselves -with-mankind meant masturbation? And NOW it "means" homosexuality"???
You use the word, "wisdom" as if there is no difference between worldly (mankind's wisdom) and Divine wisdom. Even the "best" wisdom of this world is often at odds with God's or with Godly wisdom/discernment.
Great insight
Why should homosexuality being a part of someone identity make it any more or less moral? That seems to be a suggestion in this video...
In Hebrew, Leviticus 18:22 says:
ואת־זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תעובה הִוא
wĕʾet-zākār lōʾ tiškab miškĕbê (miškĕvê) tôʿēbâ hiw
A literal translation is: ‘With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings (or beds) of a woman. (An) abomination (tôʿēbâ) is that.’ [1: p231][5]
The Septugint (Greek) reads thus:
καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν.
The NRSV translation says: ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.’
In Hebrew, Leviticus 20:13 says:
ואיש אשר ישכב את־זכר משכבי אשה תעובה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם
wĕʾîš ʾăšer yiškab ʾet-zākār miškĕbê (miškĕvê) tôʿēbâ ʿāśû šĕnêhem môt yûmātû dĕmêhem bām
The Septuagint (Greek) reads thus:
καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι, θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν
English (NRSV):
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
People argue that the prohibition of male intercourse with other men found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is not grounded in violating the natural complementarity God created between men and women. Instead, such actions “degraded” men by treating them in a way that only women should be treated. Some even cite Philo, Plutarch, and Clement of Alexandria as evidence that ancient people were more concerned about sex lowering a man’s status to the inferior one held by women then with sexual complementarity, an attitude they call “deeply misogynistic”.
People also argue that if Leviticus were about sexual complementarity then why doesn’t it condemn female-female sexual relations? They conclude that since we no longer endorse such “patriarchy,” male intercourse can be seen as the loving exchange of equals and not as the degradation of a man to the status of a woman. But I believe these people have missed the point due to a modern sense of political correctness.
For example, saying an adult is being childish does not mean children are bad, sub-human, or detestable. It doesn’t even mean children have less worth than adults. It just means adults are not children and so they shouldn’t act like children. Likewise, ancient writers calling men in the passive role of anal intercourse “effeminate” or “man-women” does not mean women are bad and therefore men shouldn’t be brought down to their level. It just means men aren’t women and so they should not be treated like women by being sexually penetrated.
Regarding the lack of female-female sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18, this does not prove the text is not about sexual complementarity. That’s because *all* the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 were written for a male audience. For example, even though women were not explicitly prohibited from engaging in incest, the fact that men were prohibited means the same rules applied to women. The same assumption can be made for male-male and female-female sexual relations.
For some people, The “patriarchy argument” continues in their treatment of Romans 1:26-27, which is perhaps the most explicit condemnation of same-sex behavior in the Bible. Here Paul speaks of idolaters and how God, “ . . . gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
Some claim that the “unnatural” intercourse in this passage involved men taking the woman’s passive role in sex and women taking the man’s active role. It had everything to do with ancient patriarchy and nothing to do with either the anatomy of men and women or the body’s natural purpose. But this totally misses the point of the “exchange repetition” in Romans 1. Prior to Romans 1:26 Paul says that Creation shows there’s one true God and the idolaters have no excuse not to worship him (Romans 1:20). But their minds were “darkened” and they *exchanged* the proper end of their worship, or God, for an improper end, or idols (verses 21-23).
Next, their bodies were “defiled” and they *exchanged* the proper object of their belief, or “the truth about God,” for “a lie.” This could only happen because they suppressed knowledge of God that becomes obvious when we think about creation. Finally, their passions were “degraded” and women *exchanged* the natural object of their sexual desires, or men, for women and men did likewise. What all of these exchanges have in common is not failing to adhere to society’s moral norms, but failing to adhere to the natural order seen in creation itself - whether it’s worship of the creator or sexual relations with the natural partner. Paul even uses the Greek words for “male” and “female” instead of the Greek words for “men” and “women” to no doubt harken back to the creation account in Genesis 1 which describes how God made humans “male and female.”