ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Brian Stoffregen on March 10, 2021, 09:44:57 AM

Title: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 10, 2021, 09:44:57 AM

An article about the introduction of the word homosexuals in the Bible ... and that it was a mistake.

https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr (https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr)
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 10, 2021, 10:27:57 AM

An article about the introduction of the word homosexuals in the Bible ... and that it was a mistake.

https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr (https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr)
I think the article makes a basic error in thinking of homosexual as something a person IS rather than same-sex attraction as something that affects them. God is indeed okay with gays in the sense that Christ died for same-sex attracted people just like everyone else. That in no way implies that a romantic/erotic relationship between people of the same sex is permissible.

Male and female are Biblical categories of creation. Gay and straight are not.   
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: jebutler on March 10, 2021, 11:21:16 AM

An article about the introduction of the word homosexuals in the Bible ... and that it was a mistake.

https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr (https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr)

I like this quote:

Since their publication some 40 years ago, we have seen the largest amount of teen and young adult suicide in the history of the world. (emphasis mine)

Does he really have statistics from the beginning of time to prove this? Does he know the rate of teen and adult suicide in the Roman Empire? Medieval Europe? China? India?

I doubt he even has information from 100 years ago in America. But he just knows it's the worst in the history of the world!!

Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 10, 2021, 12:03:32 PM

An article about the introduction of the word homosexuals in the Bible ... and that it was a mistake.

https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr (https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr)

I like this quote:

Since their publication some 40 years ago, we have seen the largest amount of teen and young adult suicide in the history of the world. (emphasis mine)

Does he really have statistics from the beginning of time to prove this? Does he know the rate of teen and adult suicide in the Roman Empire? Medieval Europe? China? India?

I doubt he even has information from 100 years ago in America. But he just knows it's the worst in the history of the world!!
Not only is this historic claim unsubstantiated, neither is causality established. This could well be an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There could well be many other causes for an increase in suicide.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 10, 2021, 12:06:02 PM

An article about the introduction of the word homosexuals in the Bible ... and that it was a mistake.

https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr (https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr)

The word "homosexual" means different things to different people.  Some use the word "homosexual" to define those who affirm same-sex desire and behavior.  Others use the word "homosexual" to define those who simply HAVE same-sex attraction.  In the second case, it is indeed possible for a person to be a "homosexual Christian" if this means that they HAVE same-sex attraction but agree with God that same-sex behavior is sinful in all circumstances.  The pertitnent Greek passages in the NT describe same-sex BEHAVIOR and are not interested in the modern notion of "orientation" (although the ancient world did know of people who were same-sex attracted).

Having said all that, I think it is a mistake to speak in terms of "heterosexuality" versus "homosexuality" as though the former is normal and and the latter is abnormal - because Scripture does not work with these categories.

Instead, Scripture deals with sexuality being "very good" in terms of sexual behavior between a man and a woman within marriage versus every other kind of sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) being sinful or "abnormal" based on God's original intent in creation.  The problem with using the categories of "heterosexual" versus "homosexual" is that we have fallen into the trap of thinking that heterosexual behavior outside of marriage is not quite as sinful as homosexual behavior because heterosexual behavior is "normal."  But this is a worldly way of viewing sexuality, and is not biblical.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 10, 2021, 01:12:09 PM
I think his essay suggest that our discussions about homosexuality would be quite different today if the RSV and subsequent translations had used "sexual perverts" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy rather than "homosexuals."


However, DBAG 3rd edition includes these comments on ἀρσενοκοίτης: "(on the impropriety of RSV's 'homosexuals' [altered to 'sodomites' NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, '86, 187-91; cp. Dwright, ibid. 41, '87, 396-98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term 'sexual pervert' is lexically unacceptable)"


The only gloss that BDAG suggests for ἀρσενοκοίτης is "pederast".


That is the understanding Luther had when he translated it with die Knabenschänder.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 10, 2021, 01:30:20 PM
I think his essay suggest that our discussions about homosexuality would be quite different today if the RSV and subsequent translations had used "sexual perverts" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy rather than "homosexuals."


However, DBAG 3rd edition includes these comments on ἀρσενοκοίτης: "(on the impropriety of RSV's 'homosexuals' [altered to 'sodomites' NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, '86, 187-91; cp. Dwright, ibid. 41, '87, 396-98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term 'sexual pervert' is lexically unacceptable)"


The only gloss that DBAG suggests for ἀρσενοκοίτης is "pederast".


That is the understanding Luther had when he translated it with die Knabenschänder.
At issue, though, is what is meant by perverted. Erotic attraction for a person of the same sex is indeed a perversion of the purpose and nature of sex. Why is someone who desires to expose himself to children a sexual pervert? What is perverted about adult attraction to young people? Is God okay with such people? They certainly exist and always have, and in some cultures have been considered normal. And they certainly experience marginalization. And someone's desire to expose himself has the ultimate "I was born that way" excuse, because he was indeed born naked. If someone came to you as a pastor and said he experienced profound erotic attraction to children, what would you tell him?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: John_Hannah on March 10, 2021, 01:33:28 PM
I think his essay suggest that our discussions about homosexuality would be quite different today if the RSV and subsequent translations had used "sexual perverts" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy rather than "homosexuals."


However, DBAG 3rd edition includes these comments on ἀρσενοκοίτης: "(on the impropriety of RSV's 'homosexuals' [altered to 'sodomites' NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, '86, 187-91; cp. Dwright, ibid. 41, '87, 396-98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term 'sexual pervert' is lexically unacceptable)"


The only gloss that DBAG suggests for ἀρσενοκοίτης is "pederast".


That is the understanding Luther had when he translated it with die Knabenschänder.

"DBAG?"

Is it now Danker, Bauer, Arndt, & Gingrich? I have always used BDAG.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 10, 2021, 03:28:18 PM
I think his essay suggest that our discussions about homosexuality would be quite different today if the RSV and subsequent translations had used "sexual perverts" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy rather than "homosexuals."


However, DBAG 3rd edition includes these comments on ἀρσενοκοίτης: "(on the impropriety of RSV's 'homosexuals' [altered to 'sodomites' NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, '86, 187-91; cp. Dwright, ibid. 41, '87, 396-98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term 'sexual pervert' is lexically unacceptable)"


The only gloss that DBAG suggests for ἀρσενοκοίτης is "pederast".


That is the understanding Luther had when he translated it with die Knabenschänder.

"DBAG?"

Is it now Danker, Bauer, Arndt, & Gingrich? I have always used BDAG.


Post has been corrected.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: David Garner on March 10, 2021, 03:55:37 PM
There are so many errors in reasoning in that article it is hard to untangle them all.  The worst, though, is presuming that because his Church approaches gays that way, this means all churches do, and further presuming that the opposite of treating homoxexuals as dirty sinful people to be scorned and avoided is to treat their attraction as normal and properly ordered and God-pleasing.

I have sexual attractions that are not God-pleasing too. I'm not demanding anyone celebrate them and join me in affirming them as proper and God-pleasing.  Even if I managed to get the Church to do so, my wife is a bit of a tougher sell.  So I do what Christians -- gay and straight -- have always done.  I confess them, I repent of them, and I strive to avoid them.  I fail, often.  Imagine if I didn't bother trying.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 10, 2021, 04:41:56 PM
There are so many errors in reasoning in that article it is hard to untangle them all.  The worst, though, is presuming that because his Church approaches gays that way, this means all churches do, and further presuming that the opposite of treating homoxexuals as dirty sinful people to be scorned and avoided is to treat their attraction as normal and properly ordered and God-pleasing.

I have sexual attractions that are not God-pleasing too. I'm not demanding anyone celebrate them and join me in affirming them as proper and God-pleasing.  Even if I managed to get the Church to do so, my wife is a bit of a tougher sell.  So I do what Christians -- gay and straight -- have always done.  I confess them, I repent of them, and I strive to avoid them.  I fail, often.  Imagine if I didn't bother trying.

The right assumption it makes is that the translation of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy has been culturally bound through the ages. It wasn't about "homosexuals" until 1948.


Yes, there are those who treat homosexuals as "dirty sinful people to be scorned and avoided" even those who are committed to celibacy. The opposite is to treat them as children of God, loved by the Savior, equal members in the family of God. They, like all of us, will commit sins. I believe that Paul's advice that it is better to marry than be promiscuous is equally applicable to homosexuals as heterosexuals. I recall reading something in Luther that argued that marriage was a curb against promiscuity, too.


I don't claim to understand where sexual desires come from. I don't understand why I'm attracted to some women and not others. I don't understand why some men are attracted to other men rather than women. The same with women. I don't understand why I'm right handed and other people prefer their left hands. We don't understand preferences, but we know that they exist.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Weedon on March 10, 2021, 04:44:33 PM
Wait a minute, Brian, you fault the version of the Bible when the language DOESN’T update with current usage often enough; now you’re faulting it when it DID update. Makes no sense, my friend. By the way, KJV still does the job:

Nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind....
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 10, 2021, 04:59:32 PM
Wait a minute, Brian, you fault the version of the Bible when the language DOESN’T update with current usage often enough; now you’re faulting it when it DID update. Makes no sense, my friend. By the way, KJV still does the job:

Nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind....


I'm pretty sure that none of the married homosexuals I know would say that they are abusing themselves with mankind.


Yes, the language of the Bible needs to be updated as English changes. The essay suggests that the change to "homosexuals" in 1948 changed the meaning of the Bible from men who abused boys to homosexuals in general.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: David Garner on March 10, 2021, 05:00:21 PM
The right assumption it makes is that the translation of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy has been culturally bound through the ages. It wasn't about "homosexuals" until 1948.

Are you suggesting the Church never cared much about homosexuality until 1948?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Richard Johnson on March 10, 2021, 10:26:09 PM

An article about the introduction of the word homosexuals in the Bible ... and that it was a mistake.

https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr (https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/?fbclid=IwAR2x_M-2oqervqPbbmd-iQloUTQ4ZavCg-lTkNjdoCkt0PUE5wdYC_GKr8M#.YEjapaJHbmr)

I like this quote:

Since their publication some 40 years ago, we have seen the largest amount of teen and young adult suicide in the history of the world. (emphasis mine)

Does he really have statistics from the beginning of time to prove this? Does he know the rate of teen and adult suicide in the Roman Empire? Medieval Europe? China? India?

I doubt he even has information from 100 years ago in America. But he just knows it's the worst in the history of the world!!

Details, details.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 11, 2021, 01:22:45 AM
The right assumption it makes is that the translation of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy has been culturally bound through the ages. It wasn't about "homosexuals" until 1948.

Are you suggesting the Church never cared much about homosexuality until 1948?


Yes. Homosexuality as an orientation wasn't much on the church's or anyone's radar back then. Even in recent years, when I've asked, "What is a homosexual?" Usually, if they answer, it's only about behaviors. Behaviors don't make one a homosexual. The first time I heard a more accurate definition was in 1975 or 1976 when a pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church spoke to us as the Denver House of Studies. Homosexuality is about what happens in the head: one's sexual dreams, fantasies, and desires; even if one never engages in any of those behaviors. In the earliest days of the ELCA, we would ordain homosexuals if they agreed to abstain from sexual relationships. There used to be a pastor in this forum who self-identified as homosexual, but who also agreed with those restrictions.


I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships.


I believe that the conundrum the ELCA ran into was that the original Vision and Expectations said: "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful." Once same-sex marriages became available, the reason in this document for prohibiting sex relationships, i.e., being single; no longer applied.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 11, 2021, 08:24:34 AM
Dreams, fantasies, and desires are not new, nor new as directed at people of the same sex. Nor would any ancient be stunned that some people seem uniformly to experience attraction to the same sex. What is new is the idea that “orientation” is an amoral category of human being like sex, and that committing sins one is oriented toward committing is therefore not sinful.

Much of the modern take on sexuality issues seems to stem from the idea that the purpose of religion is to offer fulfillment.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 11, 2021, 09:54:37 AM
The right assumption it makes is that the translation of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy has been culturally bound through the ages. It wasn't about "homosexuals" until 1948.

Are you suggesting the Church never cared much about homosexuality until 1948?


Yes. Homosexuality as an orientation wasn't much on the church's or anyone's radar back then. Even in recent years, when I've asked, "What is a homosexual?" Usually, if they answer, it's only about behaviors. Behaviors don't make one a homosexual. The first time I heard a more accurate definition was in 1975 or 1976 when a pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church spoke to us as the Denver House of Studies. Homosexuality is about what happens in the head: one's sexual dreams, fantasies, and desires; even if one never engages in any of those behaviors. In the earliest days of the ELCA, we would ordain homosexuals if they agreed to abstain from sexual relationships. There used to be a pastor in this forum who self-identified as homosexual, but who also agreed with those restrictions.


I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships.


I believe that the conundrum the ELCA ran into was that the original Vision and Expectations said: "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful." Once same-sex marriages became available, the reason in this document for prohibiting sex relationships, i.e., being single; no longer applied.

Brian, you wrote:  "I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships."

I can't speak for the Orthodox, but I know for a fact that the LCMS will ordain a man into the pastoral office if he has same-sex attraction - as long as he is repentant, and that means either single/celibate or married to a woman. 

In fact, years ago I personally endorsed a man who wanted to become an LCMS pastor and attend the St. Louis seminary.  He was up front with them that he had same-sex attraction, but that he agreed with Scripture that all forms of same-sex behavior are sinful and that as a single man he intended to remain celibate.  They welcomed him with open arms. 

A couple years after he was ordained he met a woman whom he eventually married and with whom he has had children - even though he continues to have same-sex attraction.  So your notion that people with SSA must marry people of the same-sex (even though Scripture condemns this!) just to avoid sexual temptation has no basis because a) many single Christians with a heterosexual orientation are expected to remain celibate as long as they're single even if they don't have the gift of celibacy, and b) those who DO have same-sex attraction still have the option of marrying a person of the opposite sex, having sex with this person and having children - and having  SSA doesn't prevent them from doing this.

Your argument that a person with same-sex desires must be given the option of marrying a person of the same-sex in order to avoid temptation fails to consider that many men continue to struggle with sexual temptation for women other than their wives.  Does this mean we should argue that we should permit polygamy just so men can avoid tempation?  Or what of the incestuous man in Corinth?  Should we argue that Paul should have permitted a polyamorous marriage between this man, his father and mother because that would help him avoid temptation?  Some same-sex couples are not satisfied having sex with their one partner because they have sexual desires for others of the same sex.  Does this mean we should permit group same-sex marriage so these people can avoid temptation?  Paul's point in 1st Corinthians 7 is that the ONLY option for avoiding sexual sin is marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.  Paul does not give us the option of redefining marriage in order to help people make their sinful sexual desires "legitimate."
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 11, 2021, 10:13:09 AM
I think his essay suggest that our discussions about homosexuality would be quite different today if the RSV and subsequent translations had used "sexual perverts" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy rather than "homosexuals."


However, DBAG 3rd edition includes these comments on ἀρσενοκοίτης: "(on the impropriety of RSV's 'homosexuals' [altered to 'sodomites' NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, '86, 187-91; cp. Dwright, ibid. 41, '87, 396-98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term 'sexual pervert' is lexically unacceptable)"


The only gloss that BDAG suggests for ἀρσενοκοίτης is "pederast".


That is the understanding Luther had when he translated it with die Knabenschänder.

Brian, your post quoted above is erroneous for two reasons.

First, the German word Knabenschänder, used by Luther to translate the NT texts referring to same-sex behavior, even though it has a literal meaning that is narrow ("boy molester"), also had a broad meaning which referred to a person who engaged in same-sex behavior even if it was between two consenting adults.

Second, and I've pointed this out to you in the past, you would be hard pressed to find any evidence that Luther used Knabenschänder because he was trying to argue that Scripture only condemns pederasty as though Luther and other Christians of his day would have been just fine and dandy with adult, consensual, committed same-sex behavior.  There is NO evidence that Luther or the Church of his day would have been open to adult, consensual same-sex behavior.  So, your point about Luther using Knabenschänder makes no sense!
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: David Garner on March 11, 2021, 10:24:48 AM
The right assumption it makes is that the translation of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy has been culturally bound through the ages. It wasn't about "homosexuals" until 1948.

Are you suggesting the Church never cared much about homosexuality until 1948?


Yes. Homosexuality as an orientation wasn't much on the church's or anyone's radar back then. Even in recent years, when I've asked, "What is a homosexual?" Usually, if they answer, it's only about behaviors. Behaviors don't make one a homosexual. The first time I heard a more accurate definition was in 1975 or 1976 when a pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church spoke to us as the Denver House of Studies. Homosexuality is about what happens in the head: one's sexual dreams, fantasies, and desires; even if one never engages in any of those behaviors. In the earliest days of the ELCA, we would ordain homosexuals if they agreed to abstain from sexual relationships. There used to be a pastor in this forum who self-identified as homosexual, but who also agreed with those restrictions.


I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships.


I believe that the conundrum the ELCA ran into was that the original Vision and Expectations said: "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful." Once same-sex marriages became available, the reason in this document for prohibiting sex relationships, i.e., being single; no longer applied.

Okay, I might (or might not) grant that homosexuality "as an orientation" was not studied much in the nascent Church, nor spoken of in depth by the Fathers.  I won't do a research project to see one way or another.

But homosexual acts are thoroughly condemned in the Patristic literature.  It isn't even a question.

As for your question, I have no doubt that the Orthodox Church has priests right now who have same-sex attraction, but agree to live chaste lives.  I'd guess most if not all of those are monastics, and I'd also guess there aren't all that many, all things considered.  We would not, under any circumstances, ordain a gay man who was married to another man.  I'm not sure how any given bishop might deal with a gay man who is married to a woman, but I'd imagine he would have to be convinced that the marriage is an honest attempt to live a chaste life and not simply a cover.  I'd have to ask my bishop how he would handle such a situation, and I would be unlikely to report it here if he told me.  It is not unusual, though, for ordination to be withheld from those who suffer from other sexual sins, including (for example) the sin of divorce.  Even in cases where the divorce was biblical and a second marriage was allowed (or not sought), the bishop would have a hard time I think entrusting the care of an entire parish to one who struggled to maintain a Christian home. 
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 11, 2021, 11:33:32 AM
Dreams, fantasies, and desires are not new, nor new as directed at people of the same sex. Nor would any ancient be stunned that some people seem uniformly to experience attraction to the same sex. What is new is the idea that “orientation” is an amoral category of human being like sex, and that committing sins one is oriented toward committing is therefore not sinful.

Much of the modern take on sexuality issues seems to stem from the idea that the purpose of religion is to offer fulfillment.


I have never said that "lusting" is not sinful. I've even raised the question if such lust for a spouse falls under that sin. Jesus did not say, "Every man who looks lustfully at a woman unless she is his wife, is committing adultery in his heart."


If we are hyper-literal, Jesus didn't say anything about a woman looking lustfully at a man, or lust between same-sex individuals; but we broaden his words to also include them.


Regardless of sexual orientation, we are all in the same ball park. Inner lusts are sinful. It's also highly unlikely that we can completely rid ourselves of them.


What, I believe, makes sexual acts sinful or not, is not the acts themselves; but the relationship between the people. Sexual intercourse can be God-pleasing, loving act between spouses; or an illegal act of rape. It's not the act itself that changes, but how the people are connected (or not) to each other.


Kissing can be misconduct if it is not wanted by the other party; or, it is an act of mutual love when both want that act of affection.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 11, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
I think his essay suggest that our discussions about homosexuality would be quite different today if the RSV and subsequent translations had used "sexual perverts" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy rather than "homosexuals."


However, DBAG 3rd edition includes these comments on ἀρσενοκοίτης: "(on the impropriety of RSV's 'homosexuals' [altered to 'sodomites' NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, '86, 187-91; cp. Dwright, ibid. 41, '87, 396-98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term 'sexual pervert' is lexically unacceptable)"


The only gloss that BDAG suggests for ἀρσενοκοίτης is "pederast".


That is the understanding Luther had when he translated it with die Knabenschänder.

Brian, your post quoted above is erroneous for two reasons.

First, the German word Knabenschänder, used by Luther to translate the NT texts referring to same-sex behavior, even though it has a literal meaning that is narrow ("boy molester"), also had a broad meaning which referred to a person who engaged in same-sex behavior even if it was between two consenting adults.

Second, and I've pointed this out to you in the past, you would be hard pressed to find any evidence that Luther used Knabenschänder because he was trying to argue that Scripture only condemns pederasty as though Luther and other Christians of his day would have been just fine and dandy with adult, consensual, committed same-sex behavior.  There is NO evidence that Luther or the Church of his day would have been open to adult, consensual same-sex behavior.  So, your point about Luther using Knabenschänder makes no sense!


I believe Luther used that word because that's what he believed Paul was talking about: child molesters. I'm not saying that the church was open to adult, consensual, same-sex behaviors; but that that was not their understanding of ἀρσενοκοίτης.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 11, 2021, 11:47:01 AM
Brian, you wrote:  "I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships."

I can't speak for the Orthodox, but I know for a fact that the LCMS will ordain a man into the pastoral office if he has same-sex attraction - as long as he is repentant, and that means either single/celibate or married to a woman. 

In fact, years ago I personally endorsed a man who wanted to become an LCMS pastor and attend the St. Louis seminary.  He was up front with them that he had same-sex attraction, but that he agreed with Scripture that all forms of same-sex behavior are sinful and that as a single man he intended to remain celibate.  They welcomed him with open arms. 

A couple years after he was ordained he met a woman whom he eventually married and with whom he has had children - even though he continues to have same-sex attraction.  So your notion that people with SSA must marry people of the same-sex (even though Scripture condemns this!) just to avoid sexual temptation has no basis because a) many single Christians with a heterosexual orientation are expected to remain celibate as long as they're single even if they don't have the gift of celibacy, and b) those who DO have same-sex attraction still have the option of marrying a person of the opposite sex, having sex with this person and having children - and having  SSA doesn't prevent them from doing this.

Your argument that a person with same-sex desires must be given the option of marrying a person of the same-sex in order to avoid temptation fails to consider that many men continue to struggle with sexual temptation for women other than their wives.  Does this mean we should argue that we should permit polygamy just so men can avoid temptation?  Or what of the incestuous man in Corinth?  Should we argue that Paul should have permitted a polyamorous marriage between this man, his father and mother because that would help him avoid temptation?  Some same-sex couples are not satisfied having sex with their one partner because they have sexual desires for others of the same sex.  Does this mean we should permit group same-sex marriage so these people can avoid temptation?  Paul's point in 1st Corinthians 7 is that the ONLY option for avoiding sexual sin is marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.  Paul does not give us the option of redefining marriage in order to help people make their sinful sexual desires "legitimate."


I've known too many men who entered a heterosexual marriage, even had children; but the desire for same-sex relationships remained so strong that they ended up divorced and married to a same-sex partner. For them, it would be like you being forced into a same-sex relationship.  The body might perform OK, but the mind wouldn't be into it.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 11, 2021, 11:56:05 AM
Okay, I might (or might not) grant that homosexuality "as an orientation" was not studied much in the nascent Church, nor spoken of in depth by the Fathers.  I won't do a research project to see one way or another.

But homosexual acts are thoroughly condemned in the Patristic literature.  It isn't even a question.

As for your question, I have no doubt that the Orthodox Church has priests right now who have same-sex attraction, but agree to live chaste lives.  I'd guess most if not all of those are monastics, and I'd also guess there aren't all that many, all things considered.  We would not, under any circumstances, ordain a gay man who was married to another man.  I'm not sure how any given bishop might deal with a gay man who is married to a woman, but I'd imagine he would have to be convinced that the marriage is an honest attempt to live a chaste life and not simply a cover.  I'd have to ask my bishop how he would handle such a situation, and I would be unlikely to report it here if he told me.  It is not unusual, though, for ordination to be withheld from those who suffer from other sexual sins, including (for example) the sin of divorce.  Even in cases where the divorce was biblical and a second marriage was allowed (or not sought), the bishop would have a hard time I think entrusting the care of an entire parish to one who struggled to maintain a Christian home.


Ah, maintaining a Christian home; or 1 Timothy 3:4-5 words (CEB): "They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect, because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church?"


What does a congregation or judicatory do if a pastor's child has moved in with partner? This has happened with numerous family members and some clergy I know. Should a pastor resign if children do not follow the church's teachings about sex and marriage? Or, enters into a same-sex relationship?



Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: David Garner on March 11, 2021, 12:17:18 PM
Okay, I might (or might not) grant that homosexuality "as an orientation" was not studied much in the nascent Church, nor spoken of in depth by the Fathers.  I won't do a research project to see one way or another.

But homosexual acts are thoroughly condemned in the Patristic literature.  It isn't even a question.

As for your question, I have no doubt that the Orthodox Church has priests right now who have same-sex attraction, but agree to live chaste lives.  I'd guess most if not all of those are monastics, and I'd also guess there aren't all that many, all things considered.  We would not, under any circumstances, ordain a gay man who was married to another man.  I'm not sure how any given bishop might deal with a gay man who is married to a woman, but I'd imagine he would have to be convinced that the marriage is an honest attempt to live a chaste life and not simply a cover.  I'd have to ask my bishop how he would handle such a situation, and I would be unlikely to report it here if he told me.  It is not unusual, though, for ordination to be withheld from those who suffer from other sexual sins, including (for example) the sin of divorce.  Even in cases where the divorce was biblical and a second marriage was allowed (or not sought), the bishop would have a hard time I think entrusting the care of an entire parish to one who struggled to maintain a Christian home.


Ah, maintaining a Christian home; or 1 Timothy 3:4-5 words (CEB): "They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect, because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church?"


What does a congregation or judicatory do if a pastor's child has moved in with partner? This has happened with numerous family members and some clergy I know. Should a pastor resign if children do not follow the church's teachings about sex and marriage? Or, enters into a same-sex relationship?

Also a question for the bishop, in our polity.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 11, 2021, 12:47:37 PM
Dreams, fantasies, and desires are not new, nor new as directed at people of the same sex. Nor would any ancient be stunned that some people seem uniformly to experience attraction to the same sex. What is new is the idea that “orientation” is an amoral category of human being like sex, and that committing sins one is oriented toward committing is therefore not sinful.

Much of the modern take on sexuality issues seems to stem from the idea that the purpose of religion is to offer fulfillment.


I have never said that "lusting" is not sinful. I've even raised the question if such lust for a spouse falls under that sin. Jesus did not say, "Every man who looks lustfully at a woman unless she is his wife, is committing adultery in his heart."


If we are hyper-literal, Jesus didn't say anything about a woman looking lustfully at a man, or lust between same-sex individuals; but we broaden his words to also include them.


Regardless of sexual orientation, we are all in the same ball park. Inner lusts are sinful. It's also highly unlikely that we can completely rid ourselves of them.


What, I believe, makes sexual acts sinful or not, is not the acts themselves; but the relationship between the people. Sexual intercourse can be God-pleasing, loving act between spouses; or an illegal act of rape. It's not the act itself that changes, but how the people are connected (or not) to each other.


Kissing can be misconduct if it is not wanted by the other party; or, it is an act of mutual love when both want that act of affection.
Sexual desire per se is not the same thing as lust. Also, consent/mutuality is a 5th commandment issue, not a 6th commandment issue. The proper use the body/sexuality is the 6th commandment issue.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 11, 2021, 01:05:43 PM
Brian, you wrote:  "I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships."

I can't speak for the Orthodox, but I know for a fact that the LCMS will ordain a man into the pastoral office if he has same-sex attraction - as long as he is repentant, and that means either single/celibate or married to a woman. 

In fact, years ago I personally endorsed a man who wanted to become an LCMS pastor and attend the St. Louis seminary.  He was up front with them that he had same-sex attraction, but that he agreed with Scripture that all forms of same-sex behavior are sinful and that as a single man he intended to remain celibate.  They welcomed him with open arms. 

A couple years after he was ordained he met a woman whom he eventually married and with whom he has had children - even though he continues to have same-sex attraction.  So your notion that people with SSA must marry people of the same-sex (even though Scripture condemns this!) just to avoid sexual temptation has no basis because a) many single Christians with a heterosexual orientation are expected to remain celibate as long as they're single even if they don't have the gift of celibacy, and b) those who DO have same-sex attraction still have the option of marrying a person of the opposite sex, having sex with this person and having children - and having  SSA doesn't prevent them from doing this.

Your argument that a person with same-sex desires must be given the option of marrying a person of the same-sex in order to avoid temptation fails to consider that many men continue to struggle with sexual temptation for women other than their wives.  Does this mean we should argue that we should permit polygamy just so men can avoid temptation?  Or what of the incestuous man in Corinth?  Should we argue that Paul should have permitted a polyamorous marriage between this man, his father and mother because that would help him avoid temptation?  Some same-sex couples are not satisfied having sex with their one partner because they have sexual desires for others of the same sex.  Does this mean we should permit group same-sex marriage so these people can avoid temptation?  Paul's point in 1st Corinthians 7 is that the ONLY option for avoiding sexual sin is marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.  Paul does not give us the option of redefining marriage in order to help people make their sinful sexual desires "legitimate."


I've known too many men who entered a heterosexual marriage, even had children; but the desire for same-sex relationships remained so strong that they ended up divorced and married to a same-sex partner. For them, it would be like you being forced into a same-sex relationship.  The body might perform OK, but the mind wouldn't be into it.

Brian, I also know some heterosexual men who enter a heterosexual marriage, but the desire for other women remained so strong that they ended up getting a divorce so they could marry other women to whom they were sexually attracted.

We all have various sinful sexual desires that God does NOT allow us to act upon, and attempting to condone such sinful sexual behaviors with the label of "marriage" is not the solution.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Randy Bosch on March 11, 2021, 01:16:11 PM
Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 11, 2021, 05:48:32 PM
Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.


Hmmm, if marriage should be honored by all, wouldn't that mean that y'all should honor same-sex marriages?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 11, 2021, 06:15:39 PM
Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Hmmm, if marriage should be honored by all, wouldn't that mean that y'all should honor same-sex marriages?

No. I know, you're only asking an illogical question, in the context of this conversation, but what is your answer?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Charles Austin on March 11, 2021, 07:49:01 PM
Can we “honor” the social contracts of the secular world, and would that not include a marriage contract or at least a contact of something between two people?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 11, 2021, 10:24:20 PM
A hitman can have a contract to violate the 5th. We don’t honor it. Why does making a contract out of something or mutually agreeing to it suddenly make it okay?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 11, 2021, 10:34:51 PM
Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.


Hmmm, if marriage should be honored by all, wouldn't that mean that y'all should honor same-sex marriages?

No.  God wants us to honor marriage between one man and one woman.  Any other "marriage" is not MARRIAGE.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Charles Austin on March 11, 2021, 11:43:24 PM
But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a “family-like” unit of society? Take the “m” word out.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 02:08:16 AM
A hitman can have a contract to violate the 5th. We don’t honor it. Why does making a contract out of something or mutually agreeing to it suddenly make it okay?


Because it's better than the alternative; and it's legal.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 02:10:16 AM
Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.


Hmmm, if marriage should be honored by all, wouldn't that mean that y'all should honor same-sex marriages?

No.  God wants us to honor marriage between one man and one woman.  Any other "marriage" is not MARRIAGE.


That isn't what the passage says. In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it say that a marriage is between one man and one woman; but if that's how you want to limit it; then I also have a right to say that "by all" means "by all" and "marriage" means all legal marriages.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Charles Austin on March 12, 2021, 04:32:53 AM
Brian said it. We speak of a legal contract.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dave Likeness on March 12, 2021, 09:29:32 AM
Holy Scripture reminds us that there are 3 purposes of a marriage instituted by God
between one man and one woman.

1. Companionship....God did not want Adam to be along so he created a woman Eve,
to be his companion and helpmate.

3. Reproduction.......God wanted man to be fruitful and multiply so he created a woman, Eve
to be his partner, so they could procreate and have children

3. For the Sake of Morality....God does not want men and women to be tempted by sexual
immorality, so He instituted marriage where one can be faithful to one's spouse..
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 12, 2021, 09:34:29 AM
But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a “family-like” unit of society? Take the “m” word out.

No.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: jebutler on March 12, 2021, 10:01:25 AM
But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a “family-like” unit of society? Take the “m” word out.

But if it's just a "legal contract" (as you and Brian have argued) then why stop with two people? Why not a "civil commitment" among three or more? Why not "honor and respect" a multiple partner arrangement? Polyamorous parties are already arguing under Obergefell that their marriages should be recognized. So far, courts have resisted this. But frankly, under the Kennedy's reasoning, there is no reason not to recognize them.

Brian has stated that "nowhere in the Bible does it say that a marriage is between one man and one woman." If that is the case, then marriage is simply a social construct and ultimately meaningless.

You can't have it both ways. Either Scripture has a definition of marriage which is between one man and one woman for life or it is simply a human construct, e.g. a legal contract. If it's the latter, then marriage has no meaning and there is no reason to limit it in any way.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 12, 2021, 10:10:27 AM
Can we “honor” the social contracts of the secular world, and would that not include a marriage contract or at least a contact of something between two people?
We live in a pluralistic society. That means that in many aspects of life, we do not share a commonality of beliefs. But despite our disagreements over many aspects of life, we as a society need to craft ways for us to live together in our society without unduly burdening those whose beliefs differ from ours and showing at least a modicum of respect for them. In the history of our country, that has been very difficult to do and far too often that ideal has not been lived up to.

Same sex marriage is legal in the United States. While many believe that to have been a good idea and same sex marriage to be moral and right, many others believe that to be immoral and contrary to God’s will. In a pluralistic society like ours, both points of view need to be respected and ways devised for people holding either belief to function in society without having their beliefs unduly burdened.

The proposed equality act seems to have abandoned that pluralistic ideal in favor of proposing that the position in favor of same sex relationships, transgenderism, and abortion be clearly the preferred position and providing that those whose beliefs dissent from those positions be burdened without recourse.

Now I can understand that those whose beliefs are not affected by the new regulations see no problem with them. They are religious and their religion is unaffected. If your religious beliefs are affected, perhaps you need to find new beliefs that will unproblematic? Easy peasy.

So yes, those of us who believe that same sex sexual relationships are contrary to God’s will and immoral need to recognize that in our society such relationships are accepted and granted legal status. But we can also request that our differing beliefs be also respected and not unduly burdened simply because burdening them would be pleasing to some and easier.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: David Garner on March 12, 2021, 10:27:02 AM
But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a “family-like” unit of society? Take the “m” word out.

But if it's just a "legal contract" (as you and Brian have argued) then why stop with two people? Why not a "civil commitment" among three or more? Why not "honor and respect" a multiple partner arrangement? Polyamorous parties are already arguing under Obergefell that their marriages should be recognized. So far, courts have resisted this. But frankly, under the Kennedy's reasoning, there is no reason not to recognize them.

Brian has stated that "nowhere in the Bible does it say that a marriage is between one man and one woman." If that is the case, then marriage is simply a social construct and ultimately meaningless.

You can't have it both ways. Either Scripture has a definition of marriage which is between one man and one woman for life or it is simply a human construct, e.g. a legal contract. If it's the latter, then marriage has no meaning and there is no reason to limit it in any way.

Ironically, there is also no reason for government to be involved in it at all.  It renders Obergefell as no more than naked social engineering.  The entire basis for government recognition of and protection of marriage falls to pieces if it's just an "all sorts of human relationships and who are we to judge them" sort of thing.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dave Likeness on March 12, 2021, 11:11:57 AM
Our current secular culture fell into the trap of redefining marriage:  It says that marriage
is a relationship between two people who love each other.   Of course this opened the door
for homosexual marriage to fit that definition.  However, God instituted marriage as the
committed relationship between one man and one woman.   

There is only one type of marriage in God's sight.  The marriage of one man and one woman.
They are able to enjoy the companionship of the opposite sex, the opportunity to create
children, and a permanent relationship that reinforces the need to avoid the temptation
to sexual immorality.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 11:51:36 AM
Holy Scripture reminds us that there are 3 purposes of a marriage instituted by God
between one man and one woman.

1. Companionship....God did not want Adam to be along so he created a woman Eve,
to be his companion and helpmate.

3. Reproduction.......God wanted man to be fruitful and multiply so he created a woman, Eve
to be his partner, so they could procreate and have children

3. For the Sake of Morality....God does not want men and women to be tempted by sexual
immorality, so He instituted marriage where one can be faithful to one's spouse..


There's a fourth biblical picture (mostly from Song of Songs): pleasure. As the ELCA's so-called First Draft stated: "The pleasure of mutual erotic love is strongly affirmed."


My theory is that the earliest humans did "it" because it was pleasurable, not because they properly understood that "it" produced children. (We might also wonder if the desire for sex is innate. Do humans carry an instinctive drive like the animals to do "it"?)
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a “family-like” unit of society? Take the “m” word out.

No.


What happened to "love your enemies?"
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 12:08:31 PM
But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a “family-like” unit of society? Take the “m” word out.

But if it's just a "legal contract" (as you and Brian have argued) then why stop with two people? Why not a "civil commitment" among three or more? Why not "honor and respect" a multiple partner arrangement? Polyamorous parties are already arguing under Obergefell that their marriages should be recognized. So far, courts have resisted this. But frankly, under the Kennedy's reasoning, there is no reason not to recognize them.

Brian has stated that "nowhere in the Bible does it say that a marriage is between one man and one woman." If that is the case, then marriage is simply a social construct and ultimately meaningless.

You can't have it both ways. Either Scripture has a definition of marriage which is between one man and one woman for life or it is simply a human construct, e.g. a legal contract. If it's the latter, then marriage has no meaning and there is no reason to limit it in any way.


The Bible never defines marriage between one man and one woman. Repeatedly, it gives us examples of men having more than one wife (actually, the Bible does not have a separate word for "wife." Usually, it uses the word for "woman" with a possessive noun/pronoun: "his woman" = his wife. A man's relationship with women: whether defined as "wife," "slave," or "concubine," was that of possessing (owning) them in some way. All were "human constructs," e.g., socially accepted and respected and protected relationships.


Should another man have sex with someone's wives, slaves, or concubines; it was committing adultery; e.g., a crime against the man who "possessed" those women.


Repeatedly the NT talks of being single. Not only do we have Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians; there is also Jesus' comment that in the resurrection there will be no marriages. At least traditionally, we also have the example of Jesus (and the apostles?) that being single freed them to carry on their itinerate missionary activities without being encumbered by a family.


God's command "to be fruitful and multiply" was not practiced by Jesus, nor, as far as I understand the tradition, by the apostles. We don't have genealogies of the twelve apostles like we do with the twelve sons of Jacob.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 12:17:30 PM
Can we “honor” the social contracts of the secular world, and would that not include a marriage contract or at least a contact of something between two people?
We live in a pluralistic society. That means that in many aspects of life, we do not share a commonality of beliefs. But despite our disagreements over many aspects of life, we as a society need to craft ways for us to live together in our society without unduly burdening those whose beliefs differ from ours and showing at least a modicum of respect for them. In the history of our country, that has been very difficult to do and far too often that ideal has not been lived up to.

Same sex marriage is legal in the United States. While many believe that to have been a good idea and same sex marriage to be moral and right, many others believe that to be immoral and contrary to God’s will. In a pluralistic society like ours, both points of view need to be respected and ways devised for people holding either belief to function in society without having their beliefs unduly burdened.

The proposed equality act seems to have abandoned that pluralistic ideal in favor of proposing that the position in favor of same sex relationships, transgenderism, and abortion be clearly the preferred position and providing that those whose beliefs dissent from those positions be burdened without recourse.

Now I can understand that those whose beliefs are not affected by the new regulations see no problem with them. They are religious and their religion is unaffected. If your religious beliefs are affected, perhaps you need to find new beliefs that will unproblematic? Easy peasy.

So yes, those of us who believe that same sex sexual relationships are contrary to God’s will and immoral need to recognize that in our society such relationships are accepted and granted legal status. But we can also request that our differing beliefs be also respected and not unduly burdened simply because burdening them would be pleasing to some and easier.


How have your religious beliefs been unduly burdened? I doubt that you've been forced to officiate at a same-sex wedding; or that your church building has been forced to be a venue for such a wedding; or that the congregation has been forced to take in same-sex couples/families as members.



Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 12:32:44 PM
Our current secular culture fell into the trap of redefining marriage:  It says that marriage
is a relationship between two people who love each other.   Of course this opened the door
for homosexual marriage to fit that definition.  However, God instituted marriage as the
committed relationship between one man and one woman.   

There is only one type of marriage in God's sight.  The marriage of one man and one woman.
They are able to enjoy the companionship of the opposite sex, the opportunity to create
children, and a permanent relationship that reinforces the need to avoid the temptation
to sexual immorality.


Actually, the Bible talks about the marriage between Christ as the bridegroom and the church as the bride. The OT talks about the relationship between Israel and God as being like a marriage; turning to idols was "committing adultery" against God.


Jesus' words about marriage can be grouped in these categories:


marriage after divorce - Mt 5:32; 19:9; Mk 10:11, 12; Lu 16:18
no marriage in resurrection - Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lu 20:34, 35
marriages in Noah's day - Mt 24:38; Mk 12:25; Lu 17:27
Herod's (unlawful) marriage - Mk 6:17
an excuse not to come to a feast - Lu 14:20
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: RDPreus on March 12, 2021, 12:58:15 PM
The Bible clearly defines marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.  If we read Genesis 1 & 2 as an historical account of the first man and the first women and we take to heart what the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 19 it is quite clear.  Jesus refers to what God has joined together in Matthew 19:6.  Marriage is God joining a man and a woman together.  With respect to same sex "marriage" we cannot say that God has joined them together.  Regardless of what the civil authorities say, same sex "marriage" is not marriage and no Christian should say that it is. 
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 12, 2021, 12:59:52 PM

How have your religious beliefs been unduly burdened? I doubt that you've been forced to officiate at a same-sex wedding; or that your church building has been forced to be a venue for such a wedding; or that the congregation has been forced to take in same-sex couples/families as members.


I could mention a certain baker of whom it was demanded that he use his artistic skills to create a work expressive of something contrary to his beliefs, similarly other creative professionals. I could mention Christian based social service agencies whose contracts to provide those services were cancelled simply because they refused to operate their agency in ways that violated their stated beliefs.


Personally, I have not been burdened, but I have seen those with similar beliefs be burdened or have to defend themselves against such burdens. Or are we to be concerned about such things only when they directly affect us personally. Have you ever had your choice to obtain a abortion to rid yourself of the child that you were carrying unduly burdened? If not, then should you not be concerned if free exercise of that choice is denied others?


But this discussion is not just about what has occurred. We are also concerned here with what is being proposed the Equality Act. That has not yet become law, but some of the proposals, such as specifically exempting its provisions from the purview of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I find troubling. Do you suggest that I not concern myself until in fact I myself run afoul of the provisions of this Equality Act? Would that not be a little late to be concerned about this proposed law?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 01:53:28 PM
The Bible clearly defines marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.  If we read Genesis 1 & 2 as an historical account of the first man and the first women and we take to heart what the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 19 it is quite clear.  Jesus refers to what God has joined together in Matthew 19:6.  Marriage is God joining a man and a woman together.  With respect to same sex "marriage" we cannot say that God has joined them together.  Regardless of what the civil authorities say, same sex "marriage" is not marriage and no Christian should say that it is.


No where does Genesis 1 & 2 limit God to joining the man to one woman. The ancient Jews, for whom this was sacred scriptures, never interpreted it that way. Men were being joined to many women as wives, slaves, and concubines. Their children were often blessed by God.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 01:58:00 PM

How have your religious beliefs been unduly burdened? I doubt that you've been forced to officiate at a same-sex wedding; or that your church building has been forced to be a venue for such a wedding; or that the congregation has been forced to take in same-sex couples/families as members.


I could mention a certain baker of whom it was demanded that he use his artistic skills to create a work expressive of something contrary to his beliefs, similarly other creative professionals. I could mention Christian based social service agencies whose contracts to provide those services were cancelled simply because they refused to operate their agency in ways that violated their stated beliefs.


Personally, I have not been burdened, but I have seen those with similar beliefs be burdened or have to defend themselves against such burdens. Or are we to be concerned about such things only when they directly affect us personally. Have you ever had your choice to obtain a abortion to rid yourself of the child that you were carrying unduly burdened? If not, then should you not be concerned if free exercise of that choice is denied others?


But this discussion is not just about what has occurred. We are also concerned here with what is being proposed the Equality Act. That has not yet become law, but some of the proposals, such as specifically exempting its provisions from the purview of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I find troubling. Do you suggest that I not concern myself until in fact I myself run afoul of the provisions of this Equality Act? Would that not be a little late to be concerned about this proposed law?


The church does not rule society. The issues you brought up are about businesses, which are governed by the rules of society. As a pastor, I'm am under the rules of my church body. If I were in business, as my father was and my wife was, I would be under the rules that govern the business. My wife had to get a tax ID number. She had to file monthly tax reports - and send in the sales tax she owed the state.


If one's faith doesn't allow them to conduct business according to the rules of society, then they need to rethink their desire to be in that business.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 12, 2021, 02:23:19 PM
But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a “family-like” unit of society? Take the “m” word out.

No.


What happened to "love your enemies?"

First of all, I do not consider those who engage in homosexual relations to be my "enemy".  Secondly, you would define love as encouraging others to sin?  Or at least "respecting and honoring" their decision to sin?  Interesting.  Not Biblical or Christian, however.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 12, 2021, 02:25:29 PM
Marriage is a social estate, created and preserved by God.  It is between one man and one woman exclusively.  Jesus reaffirms this in Mark 10:6-9.  After the fall and exile from the Garden humans have altered and formed their own constructs in defiance to God's original design.  It is the nature of sinners to do this.  Even divorce is against God's design as it only came about through a command from Moses (and not God).  There may be marriages created by human societal orders (ie. USSC) which make it a societal norm for same-sex marriages.  But this too is against God's design.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 12, 2021, 02:44:18 PM

How have your religious beliefs been unduly burdened? I doubt that you've been forced to officiate at a same-sex wedding; or that your church building has been forced to be a venue for such a wedding; or that the congregation has been forced to take in same-sex couples/families as members.


I could mention a certain baker of whom it was demanded that he use his artistic skills to create a work expressive of something contrary to his beliefs, similarly other creative professionals. I could mention Christian based social service agencies whose contracts to provide those services were cancelled simply because they refused to operate their agency in ways that violated their stated beliefs.


Personally, I have not been burdened, but I have seen those with similar beliefs be burdened or have to defend themselves against such burdens. Or are we to be concerned about such things only when they directly affect us personally. Have you ever had your choice to obtain a abortion to rid yourself of the child that you were carrying unduly burdened? If not, then should you not be concerned if free exercise of that choice is denied others?


But this discussion is not just about what has occurred. We are also concerned here with what is being proposed the Equality Act. That has not yet become law, but some of the proposals, such as specifically exempting its provisions from the purview of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I find troubling. Do you suggest that I not concern myself until in fact I myself run afoul of the provisions of this Equality Act? Would that not be a little late to be concerned about this proposed law?


The church does not rule society. The issues you brought up are about businesses, which are governed by the rules of society. As a pastor, I'm am under the rules of my church body. If I were in business, as my father was and my wife was, I would be under the rules that govern the business. My wife had to get a tax ID number. She had to file monthly tax reports - and send in the sales tax she owed the state.


If one's faith doesn't allow them to conduct business according to the rules of society, then they need to rethink their desire to be in that business.
I have never said that church should rule society. Do the First Amendment Rights for freedom of religion only apply to organized churches? Do you maintain that my religious beliefs should only apply to my conduct in church and that when I am in society my religious beliefs should be set aside and have no influence on how I behave or conduct my business?


In her business dealings, conducted according to applicable laws, does your wife still believe that should should conduct herself as a Christian, as she understands what acting as a Christian to mean? Or does she leave her faith behind when she enters her business?


What is the scope of the freedoms recognized in the First Amendment? Do they only apply when we are doing specifically religious things like worshipping. Is religion under the Constitution to be eliminated from the rest of our lives as American Citizens?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Weedon on March 12, 2021, 02:54:18 PM
My $.02. This is not worth discussing with those who fall under 2 Thes. 2:11,12.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 03:35:58 PM
But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a “family-like” unit of society? Take the “m” word out.

No.


What happened to "love your enemies?"

First of all, I do not consider those who engage in homosexual relations to be my "enemy".  Secondly, you would define love as encouraging others to sin?  Or at least "respecting and honoring" their decision to sin?  Interesting.  Not Biblical or Christian, however.


Falling in love with someone of the same sex and wanting to spend the rest of one's life with them because there's something in the brain that leads one to be more attracted to them than others is a sin?


I can't recall that I've ever encouraged anyone to have sex.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 03:42:39 PM
Marriage is a social estate, created and preserved by God.  It is between one man and one woman exclusively.  Jesus reaffirms this in Mark 10:6-9.  After the fall and exile from the Garden humans have altered and formed their own constructs in defiance to God's original design.  It is the nature of sinners to do this.  Even divorce is against God's design as it only came about through a command from Moses (and not God).  There may be marriages created by human societal orders (ie. USSC) which make it a societal norm for same-sex marriages.  But this too is against God's design.


I'll remind you again, that the Old Testament does not have a word for "marriage." Rather, the Hebrew uses possession terms; usually, "to take a woman" to describe the transference from father to husband. The only word for husbands (besides "man") is ba`al, which means "to rule over" or "to own/possess". Thus, whatever relationship the first humans had in the garden, and the humans afterwards, was not seen in the same way that we view "marriage." The only words they used to describe the relationship was those related to property ownership.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 12, 2021, 03:48:17 PM
But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a “family-like” unit of society? Take the “m” word out.

No.


What happened to "love your enemies?"

First of all, I do not consider those who engage in homosexual relations to be my "enemy".  Secondly, you would define love as encouraging others to sin?  Or at least "respecting and honoring" their decision to sin?  Interesting.  Not Biblical or Christian, however.


Falling in love with someone of the same sex and wanting to spend the rest of one's life with them because there's something in the brain that leads one to be more attracted to them than others is a sin?


I can't recall that I've ever encouraged anyone to have sex.
Yes, if you take the sex out of homosexuality and all the erotic reasons one knows whether one is attracted to people of the same sec or opposite sex, there is nothing objectionable at all about two people loving each other and living together. There is also no reason for the state to recognize it or for the people involved to monogamous or faithful. When it comes to sexless love, the more the merrier.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 12, 2021, 04:09:51 PM
My $.02. This is not worth discussing with those who fall under 2 Thes. 2:11,12.
'

I think Rev. Weedon may be right.  Sadly.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 12, 2021, 05:02:49 PM
Marriage is a social estate, created and preserved by God.  It is between one man and one woman exclusively.  Jesus reaffirms this in Mark 10:6-9.  After the fall and exile from the Garden humans have altered and formed their own constructs in defiance to God's original design.  It is the nature of sinners to do this.  Even divorce is against God's design as it only came about through a command from Moses (and not God).  There may be marriages created by human societal orders (ie. USSC) which make it a societal norm for same-sex marriages.  But this too is against God's design.


I'll remind you again, that the Old Testament does not have a word for "marriage." Rather, the Hebrew uses possession terms; usually, "to take a woman" to describe the transference from father to husband. The only word for husbands (besides "man") is ba`al, which means "to rule over" or "to own/possess". Thus, whatever relationship the first humans had in the garden, and the humans afterwards, was not seen in the same way that we view "marriage." The only words they used to describe the relationship was those related to property ownership.

So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 12, 2021, 05:41:25 PM
Marriage is a social estate, created and preserved by God.  It is between one man and one woman exclusively.  Jesus reaffirms this in Mark 10:6-9.  After the fall and exile from the Garden humans have altered and formed their own constructs in defiance to God's original design.  It is the nature of sinners to do this.  Even divorce is against God's design as it only came about through a command from Moses (and not God).  There may be marriages created by human societal orders (ie. USSC) which make it a societal norm for same-sex marriages.  But this too is against God's design.


I'll remind you again, that the Old Testament does not have a word for "marriage." Rather, the Hebrew uses possession terms; usually, "to take a woman" to describe the transference from father to husband. The only word for husbands (besides "man") is ba`al, which means "to rule over" or "to own/possess". Thus, whatever relationship the first humans had in the garden, and the humans afterwards, was not seen in the same way that we view "marriage." The only words they used to describe the relationship was those related to property ownership.

So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.
Also, why is divorce bad? If marriage is just a matter of falling in love with someone and wanting to spend the rest of your life with that person, then why shouldn't people who fall out of love with each other and no longer want to spend the rest of their lives together not be allowed to do so? Once you remove the whole idea of the two becoming one flesh, which people of the same sex cannot do, and utterly divorce the roles husband and wife from the roles of father and mother, there seems to be precious little reason to bother with marrying or recognizing marriages at all. Why should society care who wrote "BFF" in whose yearbook? 
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Charles Austin on March 12, 2021, 05:55:41 PM
Good questions, Peter. Are you starting to lean liberal?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 12, 2021, 06:08:12 PM
Good questions, Peter. Are you starting to lean liberal?
No. Are you finally discerning the foolishness of progressivism? They are good questions only if one accepts the premise that marriage is just a matter people who love each other and want to live together. That isn’t what marriage is. 
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 06:12:49 PM
My $.02. This is not worth discussing with those who fall under 2 Thes. 2:11,12.


Thank you for the encouragement to study 2 Thessalonians more deeply.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 06:21:12 PM
So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.


Mark 10 is clearly referencing the Roman rules for marriage. Jewish law did not allow a wife to divorce her husband, but Mark 10:12 assumes that a wife could divorce her husband. Monogamy came into the church through Roman marriage rules, not Jewish ones. Note well, I'm not arguing that monogamy is a bad thing. My wife and I are starting to plan our 50th wedding anniversary this summer. (We've had both our shots. We're waiting for our sons and other relatives to get theirs so we might have a gathering of the extended family.) I am saying that I don't believe that monogamy originated from Scriptures.


Is there anything that humans can do with God's okay? I suspect that even our desire to be Christians is fraught with selfish desires: The benefits God gives us through faith. Similarly, our acts of repentance will be tainted with sin.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 06:44:41 PM
Marriage is a social estate, created and preserved by God.  It is between one man and one woman exclusively.  Jesus reaffirms this in Mark 10:6-9.  After the fall and exile from the Garden humans have altered and formed their own constructs in defiance to God's original design.  It is the nature of sinners to do this.  Even divorce is against God's design as it only came about through a command from Moses (and not God).  There may be marriages created by human societal orders (ie. USSC) which make it a societal norm for same-sex marriages.  But this too is against God's design.


I'll remind you again, that the Old Testament does not have a word for "marriage." Rather, the Hebrew uses possession terms; usually, "to take a woman" to describe the transference from father to husband. The only word for husbands (besides "man") is ba`al, which means "to rule over" or "to own/possess". Thus, whatever relationship the first humans had in the garden, and the humans afterwards, was not seen in the same way that we view "marriage." The only words they used to describe the relationship was those related to property ownership.

So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.
Also, why is divorce bad? If marriage is just a matter of falling in love with someone and wanting to spend the rest of your life with that person, then why shouldn't people who fall out of love with each other and no longer want to spend the rest of their lives together not be allowed to do so? Once you remove the whole idea of the two becoming one flesh, which people of the same sex cannot do, and utterly divorce the roles husband and wife from the roles of father and mother, there seems to be precious little reason to bother with marrying or recognizing marriages at all. Why should society care who wrote "BFF" in whose yearbook?


Among other reasons, divorce is bad because the two people made promises to each other and now they are breaking their promises. All the vows I offer to couples include a life-long commitment to each other.


Perhaps the most influential book for me I've read on marriage is The Sex Manual for Puritans, by Vernard Eller (© 1971 Abingdon Press). What I remember is that the basis for marriage is not love (or sex,) but commitment. The feeling of love within a marriage will go up and down. Experiences of sex may wane or become impossible because of health conditions. What a couple promise each other is to be committed to each other through all the good and bad times; the great moments of love (and sex) and those times when neither seem to be present.


Marriages end when one or both parties are no longer committed to the other.


And yes, Jesus was clear that because of human sin, namely, "hardness of heart," divorce laws are necessary. As I've heard a few people say, "Divorce is better than murder."


While George Rahn is right concerning Jesus' view that Moses (not God) gave the divorce law. Deuteronomy is clear that Moses is speaking for God in giving all the laws, e.g., "But watch yourself! Don’t forget the Lord your God by not keeping his commands or his case laws or his regulations that I am commanding you right now." (Deut 8:11, CEB)
.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: RDPreus on March 12, 2021, 07:56:17 PM
The Bible clearly defines marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.  If we read Genesis 1 & 2 as an historical account of the first man and the first women and we take to heart what the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 19 it is quite clear.  Jesus refers to what God has joined together in Matthew 19:6.  Marriage is God joining a man and a woman together.  With respect to same sex "marriage" we cannot say that God has joined them together.  Regardless of what the civil authorities say, same sex "marriage" is not marriage and no Christian should say that it is.


No where does Genesis 1 & 2 limit God to joining the man to one woman. The ancient Jews, for whom this was sacred scriptures, never interpreted it that way. Men were being joined to many women as wives, slaves, and concubines. Their children were often blessed by God.

Jesus is the one who interprets Genesis 1 & 2 to refer to God joining one man to one woman.  What Jesus says settles it.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Charles Austin on March 12, 2021, 08:16:47 PM
Peter, is marriage as you define marriage an absolute necessity for human society? Is the marriage family unit as you describe it absolutely necessary for our nation?
Societies have organized around other types of family relationships.
Is your definition of a Christian marriage the only one that is valid, not only for Christians, but for society at large?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 12, 2021, 09:00:34 PM
The Bible clearly defines marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.  If we read Genesis 1 & 2 as an historical account of the first man and the first women and we take to heart what the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 19 it is quite clear.  Jesus refers to what God has joined together in Matthew 19:6.  Marriage is God joining a man and a woman together.  With respect to same sex "marriage" we cannot say that God has joined them together.  Regardless of what the civil authorities say, same sex "marriage" is not marriage and no Christian should say that it is.


No where does Genesis 1 & 2 limit God to joining the man to one woman. The ancient Jews, for whom this was sacred scriptures, never interpreted it that way. Men were being joined to many women as wives, slaves, and concubines. Their children were often blessed by God.

Jesus is the one who interprets Genesis 1 & 2 to refer to God joining one man to one woman.  What Jesus says settles it.


The only time Jesus uses "one" it's about "one flesh". Paul is clear that when a man joins with a woman, the two become one body. When the same man joins with another woman, they become one body. Paul is clear that the "one body-ness" of sex happens even when the two are not married.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 12, 2021, 09:02:30 PM
So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.


Mark 10 is clearly referencing the Roman rules for marriage. Jewish law did not allow a wife to divorce her husband, but Mark 10:12 assumes that a wife could divorce her husband. Monogamy came into the church through Roman marriage rules, not Jewish ones. Note well, I'm not arguing that monogamy is a bad thing. My wife and I are starting to plan our 50th wedding anniversary this summer. (We've had both our shots. We're waiting for our sons and other relatives to get theirs so we might have a gathering of the extended family.) I am saying that I don't believe that monogamy originated from Scriptures.


Is there anything that humans can do with God's okay? I suspect that even our desire to be Christians is fraught with selfish desires: The benefits God gives us through faith. Similarly, our acts of repentance will be tainted with sin.

Mark 10?  No.  What Jesus quotes is straight out of Genesis in terms of marriage.  I don’t see how this is Roman law.   Btw, congrats on the longevity with your own marriage.  50 years is truly a milestone.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 12, 2021, 10:16:59 PM
Peter, is marriage as you define marriage an absolute necessity for human society? Is the marriage family unit as you describe it absolutely necessary for our nation?
Societies have organized around other types of family relationships.
Is your definition of a Christian marriage the only one that is valid, not only for Christians, but for society at large?
No, it is not absolutely necessary for human society. But it is how God designed human society to function. It is like, say, eyesight. You can have human society without it, but it won't be as good as human society with it. The fourth commandment presupposes that every human being ought, apart from some tragedy, have a relationship with his or her father and his or her mother. The 6th commandment is a corollary-- that the father and mother ought to be exclusively devoted and loving toward each other, which is one way that a child grows up learning the proper template for eventually being a husband or wife. It is possible to have robots raise all the children, to remove children from their parents and have them raised by the government, to remove fathers from all but the insemination phase of procreation, and all kinds of other things. But no other arrangement will be as wholesome and good as God's design. Children are not raised exclusively by their nuclear family, but the nuclear family ought to be the nucleus. That is God's design, not my design, and it is as fundamental to the design of humanity as two eyes, a nose, and a mouth.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 13, 2021, 02:19:37 AM
So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.


Mark 10 is clearly referencing the Roman rules for marriage. Jewish law did not allow a wife to divorce her husband, but Mark 10:12 assumes that a wife could divorce her husband. Monogamy came into the church through Roman marriage rules, not Jewish ones. Note well, I'm not arguing that monogamy is a bad thing. My wife and I are starting to plan our 50th wedding anniversary this summer. (We've had both our shots. We're waiting for our sons and other relatives to get theirs so we might have a gathering of the extended family.) I am saying that I don't believe that monogamy originated from Scriptures.


Is there anything that humans can do with God's okay? I suspect that even our desire to be Christians is fraught with selfish desires: The benefits God gives us through faith. Similarly, our acts of repentance will be tainted with sin.

Mark 10?  No.  What Jesus quotes is straight out of Genesis in terms of marriage.  I don’t see how this is Roman law.   Btw, congrats on the longevity with your own marriage.  50 years is truly a milestone.


Deuteronomy 21:15 assumes that some men will have two wives. It is never prohibited in the Torah. Rather, it is assumed that it will happen.


Roman law required monogamy, not Torah law. Both Julius Caesar and Augustus had to divorce a wife in order to marry another woman. Jewish leaders, like David and Solomon could just add wives to the ones they had.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dave Likeness on March 13, 2021, 10:07:35 AM
Unfortunately, some current pastors stress their own subjective opinions on  Holy Scripture.
However, this method fails to let Holy Scripture speak on its own terms in the total context
as God's inspired Word.  Christian theology allows Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 13, 2021, 12:00:53 PM
So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.


Mark 10 is clearly referencing the Roman rules for marriage. Jewish law did not allow a wife to divorce her husband, but Mark 10:12 assumes that a wife could divorce her husband. Monogamy came into the church through Roman marriage rules, not Jewish ones. Note well, I'm not arguing that monogamy is a bad thing. My wife and I are starting to plan our 50th wedding anniversary this summer. (We've had both our shots. We're waiting for our sons and other relatives to get theirs so we might have a gathering of the extended family.) I am saying that I don't believe that monogamy originated from Scriptures.


Is there anything that humans can do with God's okay? I suspect that even our desire to be Christians is fraught with selfish desires: The benefits God gives us through faith. Similarly, our acts of repentance will be tainted with sin.

Mark 10?  No.  What Jesus quotes is straight out of Genesis in terms of marriage.  I don’t see how this is Roman law.   Btw, congrats on the longevity with your own marriage.  50 years is truly a milestone.


Deuteronomy 21:15 assumes that some men will have two wives. It is never prohibited in the Torah. Rather, it is assumed that it will happen.


Roman law required monogamy, not Torah law. Both Julius Caesar and Augustus had to divorce a wife in order to marry another woman. Jewish leaders, like David and Solomon could just add wives to the ones they had.

For me Jesus is God.  His word is truth.  He does not lie.  So his word about marriage and divorce are accurate and true.  Marriage between Christians is monogamous because it is the best way to express love as it seeks to render God’s original intention faithfully. 
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 13, 2021, 12:52:24 PM
Unfortunately, some current pastors stress their own subjective opinions on  Holy Scripture.
However, this method fails to let Holy Scripture speak on its own terms in the total context
as God's inspired Word.  Christian theology allows Scripture to interpret Scripture.


I was certainly looking at Scripture to interpret Scripture. Deuteronomy 21:15 shows that God assumed polygyny would occur among his people.


2 Samuel 12:7-8 has the prophet Nathan speaking the LORD God's words to David: "I gave your master’s house to you, and gave his wives into your embrace. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. If that was too little, I would have given even more."


It seems that according to Nathan, God gave David Saul's wives; and would have given him even more wives had he not committed his sins against Bathsheba and Uriah.


Often, I've found, when people argue about "Scripture interpreting Scripture," they only want some verses to be used in interpreting scriptures. Granted, Luther did that, too. As I recall, he said that the passages we understand clearly should be used to help interpret the passages that aren't so clear.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 13, 2021, 01:06:27 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 13, 2021, 01:11:25 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.


I don't see contradictions. Polygyny came about when there were more women to possess. God formed one woman from Adam's side. There wouldn't ben enough left of Adam had God formed as many women as Solomon "possessed."


You've made up your mind as to what Scriptures will say and make sure it fits into your box. I try to let scripture speak for itself without imposing boxes around it.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 13, 2021, 01:13:51 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.


I don't see contradictions. Polygyny came about when there were more women to possess. God formed one woman from Adam's side. There wouldn't ben enough left of Adam had God formed as many women as Solomon "possessed."


You've made up your mind as to what Scriptures will say and make sure it fits into your box. I try to let scripture speak for itself without imposing boxes around it.
Agreed. Even when it is fulfilled and definitely interpret by the Author, you still keep an open mind. You know nothing because you can’t make up your mind.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 13, 2021, 02:01:32 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.


I don't see contradictions. Polygyny came about when there were more women to possess. God formed one woman from Adam's side. There wouldn't ben enough left of Adam had God formed as many women as Solomon "possessed."


You've made up your mind as to what Scriptures will say and make sure it fits into your box. I try to let scripture speak for itself without imposing boxes around it.
Agreed. Even when it is fulfilled and definitely interpret by the Author, you still keep an open mind. You know nothing because you can’t make up your mind.


Yup. An open mind allows God to continue to teach us. Scriptures quite often talk about people with "stiff necks" and "hard hearts". As Lowe & Nida say about πωρόω and its use in the NT: "to cause someone to be completely unwilling to learn and to accept new information" (Mk 6:52; 8:17; Jl 12:40; Ro 11:7; 2C 3:14) and πώρωσις: "stubborn unwillingness to learn" (Mk 3:5; Ro 11:25; Ep 4:18). This is not presented as a good trait for believers.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 13, 2021, 02:24:52 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.


I don't see contradictions. Polygyny came about when there were more women to possess. God formed one woman from Adam's side. There wouldn't ben enough left of Adam had God formed as many women as Solomon "possessed."


You've made up your mind as to what Scriptures will say and make sure it fits into your box. I try to let scripture speak for itself without imposing boxes around it.
Agreed. Even when it is fulfilled and definitely interpret by the Author, you still keep an open mind. You know nothing because you can’t make up your mind.


Yup. An open mind allows God to continue to teach us. Scriptures quite often talk about people with "stiff necks" and "hard hearts". As Lowe & Nida say about πωρόω and its use in the NT: "to cause someone to be completely unwilling to learn and to accept new information" (Mk 6:52; 8:17; Jl 12:40; Ro 11:7; 2C 3:14) and πώρωσις: "stubborn unwillingness to learn" (Mk 3:5; Ro 11:25; Ep 4:18). This is not presented as a good trait for believers.
No, it prevents God from teaching you anything; you still haven't learned and don't know what God has taught you already because you haven't made up your mind as to whether it is true. God says x=4 and you keep as open mind as to whether x=4 or not. Your perpetually open mind is incapable of holding truth in it. 

You endlessly quote Scripture but you have no idea what any of it actually means or how to apply it. You just like that it is Scripture. If someone says salvation is by grace, you point to James to posit that it is by works according to Scripture. If someone says murder is bad, you point to all the times God commanded His people to kill others. If someone points out that you don't go by Scripture, you point out that nobody goes by Scripture because we don't stone disobedient children to death. It is all glib nonsense from you, all day every day, but always exhaustively researched and quoted from definitive sources. Scripture to one who thinks like you is all just lines on a page that may or may not have any bearing on anything. There isn't a line of the creeds you wouldn't argue against just to get someone who believes it to be more open-minded about the possibility it is false. You are not a friend of the Christian faith but of doubt of the Christian faith.

To that you'll likely say, "Yup! Its my Myers-Briggs personality at work...[insert seventeen cut and pasted quotes from dictionaries]...because we aren't saved by doctrine but by Jesus!" Then when someone points out that the word "Jesus" has to refer to something with a definition but that you've rejected all such definitions as needlessly limiting, you'll just change the subject. 
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Charles Austin on March 13, 2021, 02:40:16 PM
Those are rather harsh, judgmental, condemning words, Peter.
Directed against another member of this forum, and someone whom I assume you have never actually met face-to-face.
Anybody see anything wrong with that?
Once again, the discussion takes to turn the place where it becomes more important Who and what ideas we exclude rather than who and what ideas we might discuss.  It seems as if your faith requires such a hard certainty in so many things, that I sometimes wonder whether it is Faith at all.
If I described  biblical conservatives here in a certain way, I would be roundly criticized. Yet you, Peter, and others throw bricks at your view of what progressives are week after week.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 13, 2021, 02:43:34 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.


I don't see contradictions. Polygyny came about when there were more women to possess. God formed one woman from Adam's side. There wouldn't ben enough left of Adam had God formed as many women as Solomon "possessed."


You've made up your mind as to what Scriptures will say and make sure it fits into your box. I try to let scripture speak for itself without imposing boxes around it.
Agreed. Even when it is fulfilled and definitely interpret by the Author, you still keep an open mind. You know nothing because you can’t make up your mind.


Yup. An open mind allows God to continue to teach us. Scriptures quite often talk about people with "stiff necks" and "hard hearts". As Lowe & Nida say about πωρόω and its use in the NT: "to cause someone to be completely unwilling to learn and to accept new information" (Mk 6:52; 8:17; Jl 12:40; Ro 11:7; 2C 3:14) and πώρωσις: "stubborn unwillingness to learn" (Mk 3:5; Ro 11:25; Ep 4:18). This is not presented as a good trait for believers.

Brian, see Romans 12:1-2.   God does NOT want us to be open to anything and everything - including the false teaching you espouse.  Our minds are to be CLOSED to the lies of the world and OPEN to the Truth of God - and regarding what marriage is, Jesus' interpretation of Genesis in Matthew 19:1ff makes it clear that marriage is for ONE man and ONE woman, and this is so important to God that He even speaks of His relationship with His people in terms of MONOGAMY!!
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 13, 2021, 02:52:50 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.


I don't see contradictions. Polygyny came about when there were more women to possess. God formed one woman from Adam's side. There wouldn't ben enough left of Adam had God formed as many women as Solomon "possessed."


You've made up your mind as to what Scriptures will say and make sure it fits into your box. I try to let scripture speak for itself without imposing boxes around it.
Agreed. Even when it is fulfilled and definitely interpret by the Author, you still keep an open mind. You know nothing because you can’t make up your mind.


Yup. An open mind allows God to continue to teach us. Scriptures quite often talk about people with "stiff necks" and "hard hearts". As Lowe & Nida say about πωρόω and its use in the NT: "to cause someone to be completely unwilling to learn and to accept new information" (Mk 6:52; 8:17; Jl 12:40; Ro 11:7; 2C 3:14) and πώρωσις: "stubborn unwillingness to learn" (Mk 3:5; Ro 11:25; Ep 4:18). This is not presented as a good trait for believers.
No, it prevents God from teaching you anything; you still haven't learned and don't know what God has taught you already because you haven't made up your mind as to whether it is true. God says x=4 and you keep as open mind as to whether x=4 or not. Your perpetually open mind is incapable of holding truth in it. 

You endlessly quote Scripture but you have no idea what any of it actually means or how to apply it. You just like that it is Scripture. If someone says salvation is by grace, you point to James to posit that it is by works according to Scripture. If someone says murder is bad, you point to all the times God commanded His people to kill others. If someone points out that you don't go by Scripture, you point out that nobody goes by Scripture because we don't stone disobedient children to death. It is all glib nonsense from you, all day every day, but always exhaustively researched and quoted from definitive sources. Scripture to one who thinks like you is all just lines on a page that may or may not have any bearing on anything. There isn't a line of the creeds you wouldn't argue against just to get someone who believes it to be more open-minded about the possibility it is false. You are not a friend of the Christian faith but of doubt of the Christian faith.

To that you'll likely say, "Yup! Its my Myers-Briggs personality at work...[insert seventeen cut and pasted quotes from dictionaries]...because we aren't saved by doctrine but by Jesus!" Then when someone points out that the word "Jesus" has to refer to something with a definition but that you've rejected all such definitions as needlessly limiting, you'll just change the subject.

Peter's words above regarding Brian show that Brian is like the person Paul describes in 2nd Timothy 3:7.  I do not say this out of anger at Brian but with the same spirit Paul had when he rebuked Hymenaeus and Philetus (2nd Timothy 2:17-18) - that they might repent. (2nd Timothy 2:25-26)
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: jebutler on March 13, 2021, 03:24:26 PM
Those are rather harsh, judgmental, condemning words, Peter.
Directed against another member of this forum, and someone whom I assume you have never actually met face-to-face.
Anybody see anything wrong with that?
Once again, the discussion takes to turn the place where it becomes more important Who and what ideas we exclude rather than who and what ideas we might discuss.  It seems as if your faith requires such a hard certainty in so many things, that I sometimes wonder whether it is Faith at all.
If I described  biblical conservatives here in a certain way, I would be roundly criticized. Yet you, Peter, and others throw bricks at your view of what progressives are week after week.

No, I don't see anything wrong with what Peter said. Brian has made it clear that he doesn't believe that God created marriage; the word doesn't exist in the OT and he rejects Jesus' argument that Genesis sets up the marriage template. Marriage is only a human construct. He has further said that those who disagree with him are "people with 'stiff necks' and 'hard hearts.'" We are "completely unwilling to learn and to accept new information"  and  have a "stubborn unwillingness to learn." Finally, "This is not presented as a good trait for believers."

Given those charges, Peter's response makes perfect sense. (But, for some odd reason, you neglect to look at Peter's words in context.)

Not to mention the fact that we've been down this road with Brian before over many years. Peter points out how he consistently deals with issues.

If you have a different viewpoint, all you have to do is research past posts and demonstrate that Peter is wrong. But you either can't or won't do such a thing.

The problem is quite simple. Many in the ELCA have come to agree with the UCC that "God is still speaking" and that one should not put a "period where God has put a comma." What they refuse to see is that God has spoken and has not changed His mind. Moreover, we should not be putting commas where the Lord has written periods.

Let's play with this question: How many years will it be until the ELCA allows people in polyamorous relationships to be ordained as pastors? My guess is that by 2030, Living Lutheran will be boasting about the first throuple to be ordained and serving together.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: RDPreus on March 13, 2021, 03:27:33 PM
About forty years ago, LCUSA published a report that delineated differences between the LCA/ALC on the one hand and the LCMS on the other.  One of the differences was that the LCA/ALC viewed doctrinal inflexibility as a sin for which we should repent while Missouri disagreed.  That difference persists to this day as the conversation on this thread illustrates.  Can we be certain that our doctrine is true?  Or is this carnal pride?  Speaking as a conservative, I concede that there are among us conservatives bullheaded and arrogant people for whom doctrinal correctness is a weapon to be used against others.  On the other hand, among liberals there are those just as bullheaded and arrogant.  Strong doctrinal conviction is not arrogance.  While the faithful are always plagued by doubts, doubt is not faith.  It's no virtue.  Doctrinal certitude is no vice.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 13, 2021, 03:58:43 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.


I don't see contradictions. Polygyny came about when there were more women to possess. God formed one woman from Adam's side. There wouldn't ben enough left of Adam had God formed as many women as Solomon "possessed."


You've made up your mind as to what Scriptures will say and make sure it fits into your box. I try to let scripture speak for itself without imposing boxes around it.
Agreed. Even when it is fulfilled and definitely interpret by the Author, you still keep an open mind. You know nothing because you can’t make up your mind.


Yup. An open mind allows God to continue to teach us. Scriptures quite often talk about people with "stiff necks" and "hard hearts". As Lowe & Nida say about πωρόω and its use in the NT: "to cause someone to be completely unwilling to learn and to accept new information" (Mk 6:52; 8:17; Jl 12:40; Ro 11:7; 2C 3:14) and πώρωσις: "stubborn unwillingness to learn" (Mk 3:5; Ro 11:25; Ep 4:18). This is not presented as a good trait for believers.

Brian, see Romans 12:1-2.   God does NOT want us to be open to anything and everything - including the false teaching you espouse.  Our minds are to be CLOSED to the lies of the world and OPEN to the Truth of God - and regarding what marriage is, Jesus' interpretation of Genesis in Matthew 19:1ff makes it clear that marriage is for ONE man and ONE woman, and this is so important to God that He even speaks of His relationship with His people in terms of MONOGAMY!!


In Romans 12:2: μεταμορφοῦσθε - 2 person, plural, present, imperative, passive


The present tense indicates that this transformation is ongoing or repeated. Christians are not transformed once and that's the end of it. We live our lives constantly being transformed.


The passive voice indicates that the transformation is something that happens to us. It happens to us through the "renewal of our minds." If one is closed minded, renewal and transformation cannot happen.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 13, 2021, 04:45:20 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.


I don't see contradictions. Polygyny came about when there were more women to possess. God formed one woman from Adam's side. There wouldn't ben enough left of Adam had God formed as many women as Solomon "possessed."


You've made up your mind as to what Scriptures will say and make sure it fits into your box. I try to let scripture speak for itself without imposing boxes around it.
Agreed. Even when it is fulfilled and definitely interpret by the Author, you still keep an open mind. You know nothing because you can’t make up your mind.


Yup. An open mind allows God to continue to teach us. Scriptures quite often talk about people with "stiff necks" and "hard hearts". As Lowe & Nida say about πωρόω and its use in the NT: "to cause someone to be completely unwilling to learn and to accept new information" (Mk 6:52; 8:17; Jl 12:40; Ro 11:7; 2C 3:14) and πώρωσις: "stubborn unwillingness to learn" (Mk 3:5; Ro 11:25; Ep 4:18). This is not presented as a good trait for believers.
No, it prevents God from teaching you anything; you still haven't learned and don't know what God has taught you already because you haven't made up your mind as to whether it is true. God says x=4 and you keep as open mind as to whether x=4 or not. Your perpetually open mind is incapable of holding truth in it. 

You endlessly quote Scripture but you have no idea what any of it actually means or how to apply it. You just like that it is Scripture. If someone says salvation is by grace, you point to James to posit that it is by works according to Scripture. If someone says murder is bad, you point to all the times God commanded His people to kill others. If someone points out that you don't go by Scripture, you point out that nobody goes by Scripture because we don't stone disobedient children to death. It is all glib nonsense from you, all day every day, but always exhaustively researched and quoted from definitive sources. Scripture to one who thinks like you is all just lines on a page that may or may not have any bearing on anything. There isn't a line of the creeds you wouldn't argue against just to get someone who believes it to be more open-minded about the possibility it is false. You are not a friend of the Christian faith but of doubt of the Christian faith.

To that you'll likely say, "Yup! Its my Myers-Briggs personality at work...[insert seventeen cut and pasted quotes from dictionaries]...because we aren't saved by doctrine but by Jesus!" Then when someone points out that the word "Jesus" has to refer to something with a definition but that you've rejected all such definitions as needlessly limiting, you'll just change the subject.


Why does "Jesus" have to refer to something with a definition? When I was born, I didn't need to know the definitions of "mother" or "birth" or "conception." Such things happened to me without my knowledge or understanding of those words.


When I was born from above through water and the Spirit, I had no definition of "birth" or "baptism" or "God" or "salvation," but salvation happened because God did it even if I didn't know the meaning of any of the words that were said.


You keep making salvation dependent upon something we know or believe. Sin is when we turn in on ourselves - even if it is our knowledge or belief.


John 9 tells the story of blind man who was healed without knowing much about Jesus. All he knew when he was first asked was: "A man called Jesus" (v. 11). Next he says that Jesus is a prophet (v. 17). He knows that he was blind and now he can see. Whether or not Jesus was a sinner didn't matter to him (v. 25). His personal experience is what matter. Not doctrines about Jesus. However, he will raise the question: "If this man wasn't from God, he couldn't have healed him" (v. 33). Often the Pharisees will say, "We know." They were certain. They were wrong. In contrast, the blind man and his parents will both say, "We/I don't know." They were open to learn more.

What I'm sure about is that God has saved me through Jesus; and God gets all the credit. Not my many years of reading and studying and teaching Scriptures; not reading through the Book of Concord. Not my many years of education.


I used to be much more like you in my thinking. I learned with John the Baptist that my reliance on myself (even my religious knowledge and faith) had to decrease so that Christ might increase.

Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 13, 2021, 05:10:10 PM
Words and names (and this will be hard for you) by definition refer to things with definitions. You refer back to definitions all the time. If you write or say “Jesus” but the noise/ink doesn’t refer to anything with a definition, you have said precisely nothing.

That you can be born without knowing what it means to be born, or fall without understanding gravity, or even pray to an unknown God is clear and true. But that isn’t the issue here. God tells us things. He reveals Himself. He doesn’t want you not knowing Him. When you refuse to know what He reveals, when you choose not knowing Him to knowing Him, when you keep an open mind about Jesus is true God and true man, born of a virgin, etc. you are rejecting what He says.

Open mindedness is an acknowledgment of ignorance and a willingness to learn. But if you can’t know, if you prefer remaining open minded to having knowledge, you aren’t willing to learn and therefore aren’t open minded. You have definitively closed your mind to the possibility of really knowing.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 13, 2021, 05:52:12 PM
Words and names (and this will be hard for you) by definition refer to things with definitions. You refer back to definitions all the time. If you write or say “Jesus” but the noise/ink doesn’t refer to anything with a definition, you have said precisely nothing.

That you can be born without knowing what it means to be born, or fall without understanding gravity, or even pray to an unknown God is clear and true. But that isn’t the issue here. God tells us things. He reveals Himself. He doesn’t want you not knowing Him. When you refuse to know what He reveals, when you choose not knowing Him to knowing Him, when you keep an open mind about Jesus is true God and true man, born of a virgin, etc. you are rejecting what He says.

Open mindedness is an acknowledgment of ignorance and a willingness to learn. But if you can’t know, if you prefer remaining open minded to having knowledge, you aren’t willing to learn and therefore aren’t open minded. You have definitively closed your mind to the possibility of really knowing.


I have no problem seeking to know Jesus more and more throughout my life. My problem is when knowledge of Jesus becomes the same thing as salvation by God's grace. A common question by evangelists is: "Do you know the Lord?" They equate knowledge with salvation - the ancient heresy of gnosticism. In a baptism liturgy I wrote, I included this dialogue:


But NAME are just babies!
     God isn't!

These infants don't know what's going on.
     God knows!

How will these children know what God has done for them?
     Their parents, family, friends, and we, the church,
     have the responsibility of teaching them,
     so that they grow up to understand
     what God has done for them.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 13, 2021, 06:01:53 PM
They have a responsibility to teach, which they cannot do with someone who insists on keeping an open mind about the subject matter.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 13, 2021, 06:05:11 PM
God brought one wife to Adam. That is the template for marriage. Polygamy came later. After the fall into sin a lot of things happened. God said they ought not have a king, then gave them one anyway, for example, and used the resulting kinship as a type of Christ.

Your line of reasoning falters because it is biblicistic and relativistic at the same time. You don’t understand or apply the relationship between the written and Incarnate Word. You just study ancient texts a lot and offer glib contradictions.


I don't see contradictions. Polygyny came about when there were more women to possess. God formed one woman from Adam's side. There wouldn't ben enough left of Adam had God formed as many women as Solomon "possessed."


You've made up your mind as to what Scriptures will say and make sure it fits into your box. I try to let scripture speak for itself without imposing boxes around it.
Agreed. Even when it is fulfilled and definitely interpret by the Author, you still keep an open mind. You know nothing because you can’t make up your mind.


Yup. An open mind allows God to continue to teach us. Scriptures quite often talk about people with "stiff necks" and "hard hearts". As Lowe & Nida say about πωρόω and its use in the NT: "to cause someone to be completely unwilling to learn and to accept new information" (Mk 6:52; 8:17; Jl 12:40; Ro 11:7; 2C 3:14) and πώρωσις: "stubborn unwillingness to learn" (Mk 3:5; Ro 11:25; Ep 4:18). This is not presented as a good trait for believers.

Brian, see Romans 12:1-2.   God does NOT want us to be open to anything and everything - including the false teaching you espouse.  Our minds are to be CLOSED to the lies of the world and OPEN to the Truth of God - and regarding what marriage is, Jesus' interpretation of Genesis in Matthew 19:1ff makes it clear that marriage is for ONE man and ONE woman, and this is so important to God that He even speaks of His relationship with His people in terms of MONOGAMY!!


In Romans 12:2: μεταμορφοῦσθε - 2 person, plural, present, imperative, passive


The present tense indicates that this transformation is ongoing or repeated. Christians are not transformed once and that's the end of it. We live our lives constantly being transformed.


The passive voice indicates that the transformation is something that happens to us. It happens to us through the "renewal of our minds." If one is closed minded, renewal and transformation cannot happen.

Good try, Brian.  But you totally missed my point.

I don't deny that we continue to learn our entire lives.  But the point of Romans 12:1-2 and is that we should always be OPEN to the Truth of God and always be CLOSED to the lies of the world.  As Paul says:  καὶ μὴ συνσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον.   But if you had your way, we would never be sure about God's will because we would always have to be open to other possibilities.  In fact, in your way of looking at things, how does one even tell the difference between τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ and τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ so that one can be closed to the former and open to the latter?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 13, 2021, 06:08:13 PM
Those are rather harsh, judgmental, condemning words, Peter.
Directed against another member of this forum, and someone whom I assume you have never actually met face-to-face.
Anybody see anything wrong with that?
Once again, the discussion takes to turn the place where it becomes more important Who and what ideas we exclude rather than who and what ideas we might discuss.  It seems as if your faith requires such a hard certainty in so many things, that I sometimes wonder whether it is Faith at all.
If I described  biblical conservatives here in a certain way, I would be roundly criticized. Yet you, Peter, and others throw bricks at your view of what progressives are week after week.

No, I think Rev. Speckhard has pretty much pegged Rev. Stoffregen perfectly.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 13, 2021, 06:13:59 PM
Good try, Brian.  But you totally missed my point.


Wouldn't be the first time, and probably not the last.

Quote
I don't deny that we continue to learn our entire lives.  But the point of Romans 12:1-2 and is that we should always be OPEN to the Truth of God and always be CLOSED to the lies of the world.  As Paul says:  καὶ μὴ συνσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον.   But if you had your way, we would never be sure about God's will because we would always have to be open to other possibilities.


I think I've been pretty clear about the will of God: we are to love God and to love our neighbors. The love for neighbors can be described: "as we love ourselves" (which Jesus quoted from the Jewish scriptures); and it can also be described: "as Christ has loved us," which was part of the new commandment given in John 13. As Jesus loved us includes love for enemies. We are likely to disagree about what that love looks like.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 13, 2021, 06:25:10 PM
Good try, Brian.  But you totally missed my point.


Wouldn't be the first time, and probably not the last.

Quote
I don't deny that we continue to learn our entire lives.  But the point of Romans 12:1-2 and is that we should always be OPEN to the Truth of God and always be CLOSED to the lies of the world.  As Paul says:  καὶ μὴ συνσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον.   But if you had your way, we would never be sure about God's will because we would always have to be open to other possibilities.


I think I've been pretty clear about the will of God: we are to love God and to love our neighbors. The love for neighbors can be described: "as we love ourselves" (which Jesus quoted from the Jewish scriptures); and it can also be described: "as Christ has loved us," which was part of the new commandment given in John 13. As Jesus loved us includes love for enemies. We are likely to disagree about what that love looks like.

I'm sure we WILL disagree on what "love looks like" because you have no way of being open to objective Truth so that you CAN know what love should look like.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 13, 2021, 07:06:22 PM
So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.


Mark 10 is clearly referencing the Roman rules for marriage. Jewish law did not allow a wife to divorce her husband, but Mark 10:12 assumes that a wife could divorce her husband. Monogamy came into the church through Roman marriage rules, not Jewish ones. Note well, I'm not arguing that monogamy is a bad thing. My wife and I are starting to plan our 50th wedding anniversary this summer. (We've had both our shots. We're waiting for our sons and other relatives to get theirs so we might have a gathering of the extended family.) I am saying that I don't believe that monogamy originated from Scriptures.


Is there anything that humans can do with God's okay? I suspect that even our desire to be Christians is fraught with selfish desires: The benefits God gives us through faith. Similarly, our acts of repentance will be tainted with sin.

Mark 10?  No.  What Jesus quotes is straight out of Genesis in terms of marriage.  I don’t see how this is Roman law.   Btw, congrats on the longevity with your own marriage.  50 years is truly a milestone.


Deuteronomy 21:15 assumes that some men will have two wives. It is never prohibited in the Torah. Rather, it is assumed that it will happen.

However Deuteronomy has Moses as the one who speaks what God told him.  God doesn’t speak the law himself.  Throughout Deuteronomy Moses is the speaker and not God.  So the issue about all kinds of types of “marriages” is about human-made constructs.  God’s original intention in Genesis 2 still stands as the only order/estate.  Not polygamy, et.al.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 14, 2021, 01:43:44 PM
So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.


Mark 10 is clearly referencing the Roman rules for marriage. Jewish law did not allow a wife to divorce her husband, but Mark 10:12 assumes that a wife could divorce her husband. Monogamy came into the church through Roman marriage rules, not Jewish ones. Note well, I'm not arguing that monogamy is a bad thing. My wife and I are starting to plan our 50th wedding anniversary this summer. (We've had both our shots. We're waiting for our sons and other relatives to get theirs so we might have a gathering of the extended family.) I am saying that I don't believe that monogamy originated from Scriptures.


Is there anything that humans can do with God's okay? I suspect that even our desire to be Christians is fraught with selfish desires: The benefits God gives us through faith. Similarly, our acts of repentance will be tainted with sin.

Mark 10?  No.  What Jesus quotes is straight out of Genesis in terms of marriage.  I don’t see how this is Roman law.   Btw, congrats on the longevity with your own marriage.  50 years is truly a milestone.


Deuteronomy 21:15 assumes that some men will have two wives. It is never prohibited in the Torah. Rather, it is assumed that it will happen.

However Deuteronomy has Moses as the one who speaks what God told him.  God doesn’t speak the law himself.  Throughout Deuteronomy Moses is the speaker and not God.  So the issue about all kinds of types of “marriages” is about human-made constructs.  God’s original intention in Genesis 2 still stands as the only order/estate.  Not polygamy, et.al.


I believe that the only times a group of humans heard God (the Father) speak directly was at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration. Otherwise, God's words always came through some means: words on a wall; words on tablets of stone, the mouths of Moses and the prophets, and certainly through the words and deeds of Jesus, (but accounts of his words and deeds come to us through human agents).

When we confess that the Bible is the Word of God; we don't make distinctions in regards of the authors of those writings. Some of us can question the Pauline authorship of some epistles - and still consider them the Word of God. We will talk about different sources of the Torah (JEDP) and the Gospels (Mark, Q, M, L) - and still consider them the Word of God. It's likely, in the opinion of many, that Moses did not write down the words of Deuteronomy. (He certainly didn't write the words after his death.) Yet, we approach the words as the Word of God. As Mark Allan Powell says about our (at least the ELCA's) understanding of "the Bible is the word of God:" "We do not mean, 'the Bible is a book that contains no errors or contradictions,' We mean, 'the Bible is the book that tells us what God wants to say to us.' That puts a different spin on things." ("How Can Lutheran Insights Open Up the bible?" in Opening the Book of Faith: Lutheran Insights for Bible Study, p. 22.)
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 14, 2021, 01:50:02 PM

However Deuteronomy has Moses as the one who speaks what God told him.  God doesn’t speak the law himself.  Throughout Deuteronomy Moses is the speaker and not God.  So the issue about all kinds of types of “marriages” is about human-made constructs.  God’s original intention in Genesis 2 still stands as the only order/estate.  Not polygamy, et.al.


How could there be polygyny in Genesis 2 when there was only one woman for Adam? If we expand your logic, wouldn't it imply that God has created one woman for each man? Would that mean that divorces happen because the man didn't find the woman God had created for him?


That's not a road that I want to go down. I suspect that a vast majority, if not all weddings, occur because the couple believe that the other is the right one - the God-given partner.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 14, 2021, 04:15:51 PM
So what order is Jesus describing in the Mark 10 passage?  Certainly he recognizes a certain estate into which one man and one woman enter.   Btw...what happens to this construct after the fall and exile in the Garden is always malleable so that humans can create situations which might be acceptable between or among them.  Sinners do this but never with God’s okay.


Mark 10 is clearly referencing the Roman rules for marriage. Jewish law did not allow a wife to divorce her husband, but Mark 10:12 assumes that a wife could divorce her husband. Monogamy came into the church through Roman marriage rules, not Jewish ones. Note well, I'm not arguing that monogamy is a bad thing. My wife and I are starting to plan our 50th wedding anniversary this summer. (We've had both our shots. We're waiting for our sons and other relatives to get theirs so we might have a gathering of the extended family.) I am saying that I don't believe that monogamy originated from Scriptures.


Is there anything that humans can do with God's okay? I suspect that even our desire to be Christians is fraught with selfish desires: The benefits God gives us through faith. Similarly, our acts of repentance will be tainted with sin.

Mark 10?  No.  What Jesus quotes is straight out of Genesis in terms of marriage.  I don’t see how this is Roman law.   Btw, congrats on the longevity with your own marriage.  50 years is truly a milestone.


Deuteronomy 21:15 assumes that some men will have two wives. It is never prohibited in the Torah. Rather, it is assumed that it will happen.

However Deuteronomy has Moses as the one who speaks what God told him.  God doesn’t speak the law himself.  Throughout Deuteronomy Moses is the speaker and not God.  So the issue about all kinds of types of “marriages” is about human-made constructs.  God’s original intention in Genesis 2 still stands as the only order/estate.  Not polygamy, et.al.


I believe that the only times a group of humans heard God (the Father) speak directly was at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration. Otherwise, God's words always came through some means: words on a wall; words on tablets of stone, the mouths of Moses and the prophets, and certainly through the words and deeds of Jesus, (but accounts of his words and deeds come to us through human agents).

When we confess that the Bible is the Word of God; we don't make distinctions in regards of the authors of those writings. Some of us can question the Pauline authorship of some epistles - and still consider them the Word of God. We will talk about different sources of the Torah (JEDP) and the Gospels (Mark, Q, M, L) - and still consider them the Word of God. It's likely, in the opinion of many, that Moses did not write down the words of Deuteronomy. (He certainly didn't write the words after his death.) Yet, we approach the words as the Word of God. As Mark Allan Powell says about our (at least the ELCA's) understanding of "the Bible is the word of God:" "We do not mean, 'the Bible is a book that contains no errors or contradictions,' We mean, 'the Bible is the book that tells us what God wants to say to us.' That puts a different spin on things." ("How Can Lutheran Insights Open Up the bible?" in Opening the Book of Faith: Lutheran Insights for Bible Study, p. 22.)

Jesus is God.  What God speaks is truth.  Mark 10 reference above is Jesus speaking directly not as a mediator (or, we would be confessing that Jesus was less than fully God/fully human)
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 15, 2021, 03:04:35 AM
Jesus is God.  What God speaks is truth.  Mark 10 reference above is Jesus speaking directly not as a mediator (or, we would be confessing that Jesus was less than fully God/fully human)


Mark 10 is a recollection and probably a translation of Jesus Aramaic words. Aramaic was the common language of the Jewish people. Hebrew was the worship language. Greek was the language of commerce throughout the lands conquered by Alexander the Great.


Recollections about Jesus' words concerning divorce and remarriage occur four times in the Gospels: Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19:3-9; Matthew 5:31-32; Luke 16:18. Just looking at the number of verses in each account indicates that there are some differences.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 15, 2021, 09:40:18 AM

However Deuteronomy has Moses as the one who speaks what God told him.  God doesn’t speak the law himself.  Throughout Deuteronomy Moses is the speaker and not God.  So the issue about all kinds of types of “marriages” is about human-made constructs.  God’s original intention in Genesis 2 still stands as the only order/estate.  Not polygamy, et.al.


How could there be polygyny in Genesis 2 when there was only one woman for Adam? If we expand your logic, wouldn't it imply that God has created one woman for each man? Would that mean that divorces happen because the man didn't find the woman God had created for him?


That's not a road that I want to go down. I suspect that a vast majority, if not all weddings, occur because the couple believe that the other is the right one - the God-given partner.

To answer your questions:

1. That is precisely the point.  God's template is one man and one woman.  He could have made 37 women and had Adam choose one or more or all.  But He did not.  He made ONE.  The bride (singular) as a picture of the Bride of Christ (the Church). 

2. No more than it would suggest that God would form our wives out of our own ribs.

3. No.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 15, 2021, 02:19:44 PM

However Deuteronomy has Moses as the one who speaks what God told him.  God doesn’t speak the law himself.  Throughout Deuteronomy Moses is the speaker and not God.  So the issue about all kinds of types of “marriages” is about human-made constructs.  God’s original intention in Genesis 2 still stands as the only order/estate.  Not polygamy, et.al.


How could there be polygyny in Genesis 2 when there was only one woman for Adam? If we expand your logic, wouldn't it imply that God has created one woman for each man? Would that mean that divorces happen because the man didn't find the woman God had created for him?

That's not a road that I want to go down. I suspect that a vast majority, if not all weddings, occur because the couple believe that the other is the right one - the God-given partner.

To answer your questions:

1. That is precisely the point.  God's template is one man and one woman.  He could have made 37 women and had Adam choose one or more or all.  But He did not.  He made ONE.  The bride (singular) as a picture of the Bride of Christ (the Church).


And yet, God never gave commands limiting the number of women a man could marry. There was no judgment against Abraham, Jacob, Saul, David, Solomon, etc., for having more than one wife, slaves, or concubines. There is a command about when a man has two wives.


Adam didn't have enough ribs (or sides) for God to form 37 women. 

Quote
2. No more than it would suggest that God would form our wives out of our own ribs.

Although "flesh and bone" (Gen 29:14) and "flesh" (Gen 37:27) are used to refer to family relationships. We frown on marrying people who are too closely related.


Quote
3. No.


I agree. One good friend came to realize that the reason he and his first wife married was because it was a legitimate way to "run away from home." Marriage was a way they could get away from their parents without offending them. Another good friend admits that she married her first husband because he supplied her with illegal drugs. Both these friends had long marriages after the first ones ended after a short period of time.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 15, 2021, 03:00:55 PM
Rev. Stoffregen,

While God did not give an explicit command, He DID only create ONE woman for Adam.  Aren't you the one who tells us, when you are bashing those mean old conservatives, that actions speak louder than words?  And if God had wanted to make 37 women for Adam out his ribs, He could have given Adam 37 more ribs.  Right?  Or are you trying to box God in?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 15, 2021, 03:36:18 PM
Rev. Stoffregen,

While God did not give an explicit command, He DID only create ONE woman for Adam.  Aren't you the one who tells us, when you are bashing those mean old conservatives, that actions speak louder than words?  And if God had wanted to make 37 women for Adam out his ribs, He could have given Adam 37 more ribs.  Right?  Or are you trying to box God in?


So, why didn't the ancient Israelites believe that monogamy was God's plan?


One woman was all that was necessary to be fruitful and multiply. For the same reason, God only commanded Noah to take two of each animal on the ark (according to the P account. Another source calls for seven of the clean animals - probably so that there would be some that could be sacrificed.) Two are all that were necessary to repopulate the animal kingdom.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 15, 2021, 05:44:55 PM
Rev. Stoffregen,

While God did not give an explicit command, He DID only create ONE woman for Adam.  Aren't you the one who tells us, when you are bashing those mean old conservatives, that actions speak louder than words?  And if God had wanted to make 37 women for Adam out his ribs, He could have given Adam 37 more ribs.  Right?  Or are you trying to box God in?


So, why didn't the ancient Israelites believe that monogamy was God's plan?...

Here's three suggestions off the top of my head.  Pick one.

1. You'll have to ask them.
2. They did but chose to be like the nations.
3. The hardness of their hearts (much like the acceptance of divorce, although not part of God's plan).
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 15, 2021, 06:13:33 PM
Rev. Stoffregen,

While God did not give an explicit command, He DID only create ONE woman for Adam.  Aren't you the one who tells us, when you are bashing those mean old conservatives, that actions speak louder than words?  And if God had wanted to make 37 women for Adam out his ribs, He could have given Adam 37 more ribs.  Right?  Or are you trying to box God in?


So, why didn't the ancient Israelites believe that monogamy was God's plan?


Sin had already come into the world.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 16, 2021, 12:04:10 AM
Rev. Stoffregen,

While God did not give an explicit command, He DID only create ONE woman for Adam.  Aren't you the one who tells us, when you are bashing those mean old conservatives, that actions speak louder than words?  And if God had wanted to make 37 women for Adam out his ribs, He could have given Adam 37 more ribs.  Right?  Or are you trying to box God in?


So, why didn't the ancient Israelites believe that monogamy was God's plan?


Sin had already come into the world.


The first humans in the Garden of Eden, without sin in the world, didn't fair too well.


Jews do not look at Genesis 3 as "the Fall." In their view, humans are constantly exposed to evil impulses, יֶצֶר הָרָע yetzer hara, they also have impulses for good, יֵצֶר הַטּוֹב yetzer hatov. The first humans listened to their evil impulses rather than the good ones. Seeking to obey God's commands can help curb the evil impulses and promote the good impulse.


There are no indications that the Israelites saw polygyny or concubinage as evil. Producing children from wives, slaves, and concubines was seen as normal. Abraham did it (Gen 25:6). Half of the 12 tribes came from slave women. Judges 19 tells a story of a Levite (a priest) and his concubine.) David (2 Sam 5:13) and Solomon (1 Kgs 11:3) seem to boast of the great number of women they had as wives and concubines.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 16, 2021, 09:08:29 AM
Rev. Stoffregen,

I don't know that we should be looking to those who deny the Messiah -- even when He stares them straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament -- for a proper understanding of other teachings of the Bible, such as marriage.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Charles Austin on March 16, 2021, 09:29:58 AM
Pastor Bohler writes:
I don't know that we should be looking to those who deny the Messiah -- even when He stares them straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament -- for a proper understanding of other teachings of the Bible, such as marriage.
I comment:
Jews do not "deny the Messiah." They just do not believe (maybe yet) that Jesus is the One. And saying that something "stares" people "straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament" is not helpful when dealing with Christian/Jewish topics or approaches to scripture. It is unfair to simply dismiss the views of those reading the ancient scriptures and taking them as God's word for a lot longer than we Christians.
Language and attitudes like that - so simply expressed, without nuance - can be the foundation for much difficulty.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 16, 2021, 09:49:24 AM
Pastor Bohler writes:
I don't know that we should be looking to those who deny the Messiah -- even when He stares them straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament -- for a proper understanding of other teachings of the Bible, such as marriage.
I comment:
Jews do not "deny the Messiah." They just do not believe (maybe yet) that Jesus is the One. And saying that something "stares" people "straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament" is not helpful when dealing with Christian/Jewish topics or approaches to scripture. It is unfair to simply dismiss the views of those reading the ancient scriptures and taking them as God's word for a lot longer than we Christians.
Language and attitudes like that - so simply expressed, without nuance - can be the foundation for much difficulty.

So, if someone says "Jesus is not the Messiah", he is not denying the Messiah?  Well, you are the wordsmith. 
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 16, 2021, 11:09:54 AM
Pastor Bohler writes:
I don't know that we should be looking to those who deny the Messiah -- even when He stares them straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament -- for a proper understanding of other teachings of the Bible, such as marriage.
I comment:
Jews do not "deny the Messiah." They just do not believe (maybe yet) that Jesus is the One. And saying that something "stares" people "straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament" is not helpful when dealing with Christian/Jewish topics or approaches to scripture. It is unfair to simply dismiss the views of those reading the ancient scriptures and taking them as God's word for a lot longer than we Christians.
Language and attitudes like that - so simply expressed, without nuance - can be the foundation for much difficulty.

So, if someone says "Jesus is not the Messiah", he is not denying the Messiah?  Well, you are the wordsmith.
Steven, there is an ambiguity in your post that you may not recognize. The vocable "Messiah" can be used to refer to the concept of a Messiah or someone who has been identified as the Messiah. Many Jews do not reject the teaching that God will send a Messiah, so they do not deny the Messiah per se. But they do reject the identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the one whom God sent as the Messiah.


Over time, several groups of Jews, especially among the Hasidic Jews have identified leaders who they thought could be the promised Messiah.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Charles Austin on March 16, 2021, 11:13:36 AM
A Jew is not denying the messiah, or that there is/will be a messiah. The Jew says Jesus is not the one. What is so plain to you is not plain to the world. And maybe we Christians haven’t done such a good job at making it clear.
We have dismissed Jews as “Christ killers” and those who just refuse and deny Jesus, nothing else.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 16, 2021, 11:19:24 AM
Pastor Bohler writes:
I don't know that we should be looking to those who deny the Messiah -- even when He stares them straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament -- for a proper understanding of other teachings of the Bible, such as marriage.
I comment:
Jews do not "deny the Messiah." They just do not believe (maybe yet) that Jesus is the One. And saying that something "stares" people "straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament" is not helpful when dealing with Christian/Jewish topics or approaches to scripture. It is unfair to simply dismiss the views of those reading the ancient scriptures and taking them as God's word for a lot longer than we Christians.
Language and attitudes like that - so simply expressed, without nuance - can be the foundation for much difficulty.

So, if someone says "Jesus is not the Messiah", he is not denying the Messiah?  Well, you are the wordsmith.
Steven, there is an ambiguity in your post that you may not recognize. The vocable "Messiah" can be used to refer to the concept of a Messiah or someone who has been identified as the Messiah. Many Jews do not reject the teaching that God will send a Messiah, so they do not deny the Messiah per se. But they do reject the identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the one whom God sent as the Messiah.


Over time, several groups of Jews, especially among the Hasidic Jews have identified leaders who they thought could be the promised Messiah.

Yes, I am aware of that.  However, those Hasidic Jews (and other Jews who would identify someone else as the Messiah or even as a messiah) are wrong.  There is only one Messiah: Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  And they all deny that.  It doesn't matter (as Rev. Austin wants to claim and as Rev. Stoffregen will undoubtedly bring up -- "but what about Cyrus?") that they believe in a messiah or a singular Messiah who is still to come (or who has already come in the person of this or that Hasidic rabbi): they all deny that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior.  And whether or not that is plain to them is irrelevant to that fact.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 16, 2021, 11:29:47 AM
Steven, I agree that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the one and only sent by God as the Messiah. However, the way that language is used, the vocable "Messiah" has a broader usage than just that of Jesus. We cannot dictate how others will use that term and cannot successfully demand that it only refer to Jesus.


Language is a tool for communication and usage is ultimately determined by those who use it. The imposition of usage rules has historically had limited success. Like it or not, in common usage, "Messiah" is not used exclusively to refer to Jesus and communication is hindered if we do not recognize that. There are better ways to communicate our beliefs than by promulgating idiosyncratic rules of usage.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 16, 2021, 01:26:04 PM
Rev. Stoffregen,

I don't know that we should be looking to those who deny the Messiah -- even when He stares them straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament -- for a proper understanding of other teachings of the Bible, such as marriage.


Judaism does not deny the Messiah. Based on their reading of their scriptures, Jesus could not be the Messiah because the messianic kingdom has not yet arrived. As one Jewish NT scholar wrote (as I remember it): We are looking for the kingdom, not a king. We are looking for salvation for the world, not a savior. This writer, Pinchas Lapide, believes that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead.


Christians recognize this about Jesus; so we claim that he is the Messiah and that he has to return to bring in the messianic kingdom.


I also note that I have looked up every verse that includes "messiah" in the Hebrew Scriptures. Those verses do not point to Jesus and what he did. Isaiah's "suffering servant," who is never called "messiah," is much closer to the ministry of Jesus. He fulfills those verses; not those that actually talk about the "messiah."


William Holladay's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament includes the following under מָשִׁיחַ: "N. B. “Messiah” as eschatological savior-figure not in O.T."



Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 16, 2021, 01:31:54 PM
Pastor Bohler writes:
I don't know that we should be looking to those who deny the Messiah -- even when He stares them straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament -- for a proper understanding of other teachings of the Bible, such as marriage.
I comment:
Jews do not "deny the Messiah." They just do not believe (maybe yet) that Jesus is the One. And saying that something "stares" people "straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament" is not helpful when dealing with Christian/Jewish topics or approaches to scripture. It is unfair to simply dismiss the views of those reading the ancient scriptures and taking them as God's word for a lot longer than we Christians.
Language and attitudes like that - so simply expressed, without nuance - can be the foundation for much difficulty.

So, if someone says "Jesus is not the Messiah", he is not denying the Messiah?  Well, you are the wordsmith.
Steven, there is an ambiguity in your post that you may not recognize. The vocable "Messiah" can be used to refer to the concept of a Messiah or someone who has been identified as the Messiah. Many Jews do not reject the teaching that God will send a Messiah, so they do not deny the Messiah per se. But they do reject the identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the one whom God sent as the Messiah.


Over time, several groups of Jews, especially among the Hasidic Jews have identified leaders who they thought could be the promised Messiah.

Yes, I am aware of that.  However, those Hasidic Jews (and other Jews who would identify someone else as the Messiah or even as a messiah) are wrong.  There is only one Messiah: Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  And they all deny that.  It doesn't matter (as Rev. Austin wants to claim and as Rev. Stoffregen will undoubtedly bring up -- "but what about Cyrus?") that they believe in a messiah or a singular Messiah who is still to come (or who has already come in the person of this or that Hasidic rabbi): they all deny that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior.  And whether or not that is plain to them is irrelevant to that fact.


If you would actually read the Old Testament - and look at where the noun/adjective, מִשִׁיח, and the verb, מָשַׁח are used, you would see that they nearly always refer to particular persons, Saul, David, and successors, Cyrus the Persian (Is 45:1), priests, patriarchs.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 16, 2021, 01:37:35 PM
Steven, I agree that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the one and only sent by God as the Messiah. However, the way that language is used, the vocable "Messiah" has a broader usage than just that of Jesus. We cannot dictate how others will use that term and cannot successfully demand that it only refer to Jesus.


Language is a tool for communication and usage is ultimately determined by those who use it. The imposition of usage rules has historically had limited success. Like it or not, in common usage, "Messiah" is not used exclusively to refer to Jesus and communication is hindered if we do not recognize that. There are better ways to communicate our beliefs than by promulgating idiosyncratic rules of usage.


We agree! Going even further, the way the Old Testament uses the word "messiah," often translated in the 37 verses where it occurs, "anointed one," has little resemblance to Jesus. I just did a search on BibleGateway for "messiah" in the ESV. It is never used in the OT and only occurs twice in the NT in that translation.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 16, 2021, 01:54:51 PM
Steven, I agree that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the one and only sent by God as the Messiah. However, the way that language is used, the vocable "Messiah" has a broader usage than just that of Jesus. We cannot dictate how others will use that term and cannot successfully demand that it only refer to Jesus.


Language is a tool for communication and usage is ultimately determined by those who use it. The imposition of usage rules has historically had limited success. Like it or not, in common usage, "Messiah" is not used exclusively to refer to Jesus and communication is hindered if we do not recognize that. There are better ways to communicate our beliefs than by promulgating idiosyncratic rules of usage.


We agree! Going even further, the way the Old Testament uses the word "messiah," often translated in the 37 verses where it occurs, "anointed one," has little resemblance to Jesus. I just did a search on BibleGateway for "messiah" in the ESV. It is never used in the OT and only occurs twice in the NT in that translation.
Brian, do you personally believe Jesus is the Messiah who was foretold in the OT Scriptures? Why or why not?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 16, 2021, 03:40:52 PM
Rev. Stoffregen,

While God did not give an explicit command, He DID only create ONE woman for Adam.  Aren't you the one who tells us, when you are bashing those mean old conservatives, that actions speak louder than words?  And if God had wanted to make 37 women for Adam out his ribs, He could have given Adam 37 more ribs.  Right?  Or are you trying to box God in?


So, why didn't the ancient Israelites believe that monogamy was God's plan?


Sin had already come into the world.


The first humans in the Garden of Eden, without sin in the world, didn't fair too well.

I don’t read in Genesis 1 and 2 (prior to Fall) that the first human(s) didn’t fare well.  Going “chronologically” and journalistically through the narrative in Genesis, there was a time when the pre-fall human enjoyed complete and even response with God.  No duplicity arrives until Genesis 3. 
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 16, 2021, 04:19:51 PM
Steven, I agree that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the one and only sent by God as the Messiah. However, the way that language is used, the vocable "Messiah" has a broader usage than just that of Jesus. We cannot dictate how others will use that term and cannot successfully demand that it only refer to Jesus.


Language is a tool for communication and usage is ultimately determined by those who use it. The imposition of usage rules has historically had limited success. Like it or not, in common usage, "Messiah" is not used exclusively to refer to Jesus and communication is hindered if we do not recognize that. There are better ways to communicate our beliefs than by promulgating idiosyncratic rules of usage.


We agree! Going even further, the way the Old Testament uses the word "messiah," often translated in the 37 verses where it occurs, "anointed one," has little resemblance to Jesus. I just did a search on BibleGateway for "messiah" in the ESV. It is never used in the OT and only occurs twice in the NT in that translation.
Brian, do you personally believe Jesus is the Messiah who was foretold in the OT Scriptures? Why or why not?


The word, "messiah," was not used in the OT Scriptures for the the one who was coming. It is nearly always used for someone who was present back in history, like the priests and kings who were "anointed". As I noted, the ESV never translates מִשִׁיח with "messiah." How could there be a foretelling of a future "messiah," when the word isn't even used in the translation?


There are other passages, like the suffering servant of Isaiah, that fit the coming of Jesus much better than any of the "messiah" passages.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 16, 2021, 04:24:52 PM
Rev. Stoffregen,

While God did not give an explicit command, He DID only create ONE woman for Adam.  Aren't you the one who tells us, when you are bashing those mean old conservatives, that actions speak louder than words?  And if God had wanted to make 37 women for Adam out his ribs, He could have given Adam 37 more ribs.  Right?  Or are you trying to box God in?


So, why didn't the ancient Israelites believe that monogamy was God's plan?


Sin had already come into the world.


The first humans in the Garden of Eden, without sin in the world, didn't fair too well.

I don’t read in Genesis 1 and 2 (prior to Fall) that the first human(s) didn’t fare well.  Going “chronologically” and journalistically through the narrative in Genesis, there was a time when the pre-fall human enjoyed complete and even response with God.  No duplicity arrives until Genesis 3.


But God says in Genesis 2, "It is not good for the man to be alone." That's quite a different statement than "God saw that it was very good" in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 indicates that there was some not goodness in the garden before Genesis 3.


Yes, there was a time when the humans allowed the good impulses to rule their lives. However, the evil impulse was still present within them. The desire for the forbidden fruit didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere. It was present from the beginning. I've argued elsewhere that the "fall" didn't begin when they ate the forbidden fruit, but when the desire to eat it, and to increase their knowledge, and to be like God. Sin is primarily an inner impulse that often result in outward behaviors.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 16, 2021, 04:36:07 PM
So Jesus isn’t the Messiah and original sin was present from the beginning of creation. Hmmm.  ::)
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 16, 2021, 05:27:52 PM

But God says in Genesis 2, "It is not good for the man to be alone." That's quite a different statement than "God saw that it was very good" in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 indicates that there was some not goodness in the garden before Genesis 3.

You are interpreting God's statement in Genesis 2, "It is not good for the man to be alone." as indicating that creation was bad, or sinful. Another way to interpret God's statement then was the indication that creation was not completed with the creation of Adam and more needed to be done, which God proceeded to do. Then, "God saw that it was very good."
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 16, 2021, 07:27:59 PM
Pastor Bohler writes:
I don't know that we should be looking to those who deny the Messiah -- even when He stares them straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament -- for a proper understanding of other teachings of the Bible, such as marriage.
I comment:
Jews do not "deny the Messiah." They just do not believe (maybe yet) that Jesus is the One. And saying that something "stares" people "straight in the face, in passage after passage of the Old Testament" is not helpful when dealing with Christian/Jewish topics or approaches to scripture. It is unfair to simply dismiss the views of those reading the ancient scriptures and taking them as God's word for a lot longer than we Christians.
Language and attitudes like that - so simply expressed, without nuance - can be the foundation for much difficulty.

So, if someone says "Jesus is not the Messiah", he is not denying the Messiah?  Well, you are the wordsmith.
Steven, there is an ambiguity in your post that you may not recognize. The vocable "Messiah" can be used to refer to the concept of a Messiah or someone who has been identified as the Messiah. Many Jews do not reject the teaching that God will send a Messiah, so they do not deny the Messiah per se. But they do reject the identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the one whom God sent as the Messiah.


Over time, several groups of Jews, especially among the Hasidic Jews have identified leaders who they thought could be the promised Messiah.

Yes, I am aware of that.  However, those Hasidic Jews (and other Jews who would identify someone else as the Messiah or even as a messiah) are wrong.  There is only one Messiah: Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  And they all deny that.  It doesn't matter (as Rev. Austin wants to claim and as Rev. Stoffregen will undoubtedly bring up -- "but what about Cyrus?") that they believe in a messiah or a singular Messiah who is still to come (or who has already come in the person of this or that Hasidic rabbi): they all deny that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior.  And whether or not that is plain to them is irrelevant to that fact.


If you would actually read the Old Testament - and look at where the noun/adjective, מִשִׁיח, and the verb, מָשַׁח are used, you would see that they nearly always refer to particular persons, Saul, David, and successors, Cyrus the Persian (Is 45:1), priests, patriarchs.

Brian, your statement above fails to consider that even though there were various small "m" messiahs (annointed ones) throughout OT history, the Jews eventually also came to use מִשִׁיח to refer to the BIG "M" Messiah - or THE Annointed ONE, who would come in the future as the Savior of God's people.  We see this in Matthew 26:63 where the high priest says to Jesus:  ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐσιώπα. καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἵνα ἡμῖν εἴπῃς εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ.   Jesus had revealed to some that He was the promised Christ, and that wouldn't make any sense if the Jews had not been waiting for future coming Christ who would usher in God's Kingdom.  Of course, the Jews of Jesus day were in error about what God's Kingdom was and they were also in error when they rejected Jesus as The Christ.

Also, in Matthew 2:3-4 Herod asks the scribes where THE Messiah is to be born.  Here is more evidence that even though there were various "messiahs" throughout OT history, the Jews were also looking for ONE, PARTICULAR Messiah to come in the future.  Jesus clamed to be that Messiah (see Mark 14:62), but the Jews rejected Him.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 17, 2021, 02:42:35 AM
If you would actually read the Old Testament - and look at where the noun/adjective, מִשִׁיח, and the verb, מָשַׁח are used, you would see that they nearly always refer to particular persons, Saul, David, and successors, Cyrus the Persian (Is 45:1), priests, patriarchs.

Brian, your statement above fails to consider that even though there were various small "m" messiahs (annointed ones) throughout OT history, the Jews eventually also came to use מִשִׁיח to refer to the BIG "M" Messiah - or THE Anointed ONE, who would come in the future as the Savior of God's people.  We see this in Matthew 26:63 where the high priest says to Jesus:  ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐσιώπα. καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἵνα ἡμῖν εἴπῃς εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. Jesus had revealed to some that He was the promised Christ, and that wouldn't make any sense if the Jews had not been waiting for future coming Christ who would usher in God's Kingdom.  Of course, the Jews of Jesus day were in error about what God's Kingdom was and they were also in error when they rejected Jesus as The Christ.

Also, in Matthew 2:3-4 Herod asks the scribes where THE Messiah is to be born.  Here is more evidence that even though there were various "messiahs" throughout OT history, the Jews were also looking for ONE, PARTICULAR Messiah to come in the future.  Jesus claimed to be that Messiah (see Mark 14:62), but the Jews rejected Him.


Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests. He wasn't the type of Messiah they were expecting from their understanding of the Hebrew scriptures. One of the major charges against Jesus was blasphemy. His claim to be the Messiah was seen as blasphemy. He wasn't the type of Messiah that they found in their scriptures.


Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:23: ἡμεῖς δὲ κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον, Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον ἔθνεσιν δὲ μωρίαν.


While Christ crucified might seem foolish to the Greeks, i.e., why would anyone be willing to be crucified? It was scandalous to the Jews. Because a crucified Messiah/Christ was so foreign to the Jewish belief, the proclamation that the Messiah/Christ was crucified was an offensive message. It was contrary to their beliefs about the messiah - and certainly quite different from the messiahs, like Cyrus, they read about in their scriptures.


It's quite possible that Christian evangelical work among Jews was less fruitful than among Gentiles because they had to unlearn some beliefs that they had about God and the Messiah.


I read once that it takes about seven times the energy to turn around a dying congregation than it takes to start a new congregation. In the established congregation, energy has to be spent to stop the train going in the wrong direction (and some don't want it to stop going in that direction,) so that it can get turned around to a new direction. With a new start, they are building the train and can make it go in whatever direction they deem necessary.


Getting devout Jews to change their deeply held beliefs was a greater task than getting Gentiles who few to no thoughts about the Jewish/Christian God to start believing in a new and different God.





Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 17, 2021, 01:36:52 PM
A hitman can have a contract to violate the 5th. We don’t honor it. Why does making a contract out of something or mutually agreeing to it suddenly make it okay?


Do we honor our government when they have campaigns to kill terrorists' leaders? Wasn't there great rejoicing at the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Don't we honor Bonhoeffer (and others) who plotted for Hitler's death?
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 17, 2021, 02:57:11 PM
A hitman can have a contract to violate the 5th. We don’t honor it. Why does making a contract out of something or mutually agreeing to it suddenly make it okay?


Do we honor our government when they have campaigns to kill terrorists' leaders? Wasn't there great rejoicing at the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Don't we honor Bonhoeffer (and others) who plotted for Hitler's death?

Both of these examples fall under the making-of-opinion heading.  They happen between and/or among humans alone (and yet always done before God's sight as well).   Making opinions can be honorable (or not)in the sight of others.  But these values never can stand before God's face as honorable or righteousness.  Opinion-making is a function which humans "do" within nomological existence and so fall under the retributional aspect of life.  And we know from Romans 3 that through the law comes the knowledge of sin only.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 17, 2021, 03:00:53 PM
A hitman can have a contract to violate the 5th. We don’t honor it. Why does making a contract out of something or mutually agreeing to it suddenly make it okay?


Do we honor our government when they have campaigns to kill terrorists' leaders? Wasn't there great rejoicing at the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Don't we honor Bonhoeffer (and others) who plotted for Hitler's death?
Soldiers do not have a contract to violate the 5th because killing combatants in just war is not a violation. As for assassinating Hitler, you think it was the validity of the contract that made it okay?   
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: George Rahn on March 17, 2021, 03:18:07 PM
It is important to note (at least for me if not for others) that the Church's message of the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins goes out to every body, including the individual who identifies as gay. Individuals are offered the forgiveness of sins in Christ.  Social contracts, on the other hand, are orders comprised of individuals eg. marriage, and cannot be altered except by human whim and imagination.  Any humanly devised social construct does not stand before God as recognized.  Or more simply, individual persons are offered Christian forgiveness not social orders.  Contractual agreements create social constructs between or among individuals.  The order between father and son, et.al. as well as that between husband and wife occur within estates or orders blessed by God and unchangeably so in terms of the order aspect.  And of course, sinners can wield their own powers within these orders and deceive themselves when they believe that they change an order for their own purposes resulting in God's wrath upon them.

There is a distinction of effectiveness that needs to be recognized here.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 17, 2021, 03:46:18 PM
If you would actually read the Old Testament - and look at where the noun/adjective, מִשִׁיח, and the verb, מָשַׁח are used, you would see that they nearly always refer to particular persons, Saul, David, and successors, Cyrus the Persian (Is 45:1), priests, patriarchs.

Brian, your statement above fails to consider that even though there were various small "m" messiahs (annointed ones) throughout OT history, the Jews eventually also came to use מִשִׁיח to refer to the BIG "M" Messiah - or THE Anointed ONE, who would come in the future as the Savior of God's people.  We see this in Matthew 26:63 where the high priest says to Jesus:  ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐσιώπα. καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἵνα ἡμῖν εἴπῃς εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. Jesus had revealed to some that He was the promised Christ, and that wouldn't make any sense if the Jews had not been waiting for future coming Christ who would usher in God's Kingdom.  Of course, the Jews of Jesus day were in error about what God's Kingdom was and they were also in error when they rejected Jesus as The Christ.

Also, in Matthew 2:3-4 Herod asks the scribes where THE Messiah is to be born.  Here is more evidence that even though there were various "messiahs" throughout OT history, the Jews were also looking for ONE, PARTICULAR Messiah to come in the future.  Jesus claimed to be that Messiah (see Mark 14:62), but the Jews rejected Him.


Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests. He wasn't the type of Messiah they were expecting from their understanding of the Hebrew scriptures. One of the major charges against Jesus was blasphemy. His claim to be the Messiah was seen as blasphemy. He wasn't the type of Messiah that they found in their scriptures.


Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:23: ἡμεῖς δὲ κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον, Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον ἔθνεσιν δὲ μωρίαν.


While Christ crucified might seem foolish to the Greeks, i.e., why would anyone be willing to be crucified? It was scandalous to the Jews. Because a crucified Messiah/Christ was so foreign to the Jewish belief, the proclamation that the Messiah/Christ was crucified was an offensive message. It was contrary to their beliefs about the messiah - and certainly quite different from the messiahs, like Cyrus, they read about in their scriptures.


It's quite possible that Christian evangelical work among Jews was less fruitful than among Gentiles because they had to unlearn some beliefs that they had about God and the Messiah.


I read once that it takes about seven times the energy to turn around a dying congregation than it takes to start a new congregation. In the established congregation, energy has to be spent to stop the train going in the wrong direction (and some don't want it to stop going in that direction,) so that it can get turned around to a new direction. With a new start, they are building the train and can make it go in whatever direction they deem necessary.


Getting devout Jews to change their deeply held beliefs was a greater task than getting Gentiles who few to no thoughts about the Jewish/Christian God to start believing in a new and different God.







I fully agree with you that the Jews of Jesus' day did NOT understand or at least would NOT accept that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah was also THE Messiah (although there is some evidence that some Jews viewed Isaiah 53 as messianic, but not in terms of the messiah willingly enduring vicarious suffering on behalf of all people).  In fact, even Jesus' own apostles didn't grasp this until after Jesus' resurrection.

However, this doesn't change the fact that they were all reading the OT incorrectly and that Jesus sets them straight when He taught that the OT teaches that the Christ would suffer as a ransom for many (see Matthew 16:21 & 20:28;  also Luke 24:44-47).  In other words, The Messiah and The Servant are one and the same person!  John the Baptist alludes to this when he calls Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (see John 1:19-34).  Simply put, a proper understanding of what the OT teaches about The Messiah did not exist until The Messiah Himself opened our eyes to see how the OT is fulfilled in Him and His suffering, death and resurrection for us.

Even though the OT teaches that The Messiah would save God's people from their enemies, the fact is the OT itself teaches that our greatest enemy is our own sin against God - and Jesus, The Messiah, came to rescue us from this enemy (see Matthew 1:21).  It appears Zechariah was also given insight into this fact (see Luke 1:76-79).  But most people did not know what Zechariah knew, which is why Jesus said (Luke 19:42):  λέγων ὅτι Εἰ ἔγνως ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ καὶ σὺ τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην· νῦν δὲ ἐκρύβη ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 17, 2021, 11:07:57 PM
Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests.

Stupid Andrew! Misleading his brother. (John 1:41)

Oh, wait... Andrew was a Jew. ?? What the ... ? Oh, okay. He was just kidding around with Simon. It's all good. 
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 18, 2021, 01:42:32 AM
Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests.

Stupid Andrew! Misleading his brother. (John 1:41)

Oh, wait... Andrew was a Jew. ?? What the ... ? Oh, okay. He was just kidding around with Simon. It's all good.


Andrew and Peter, and for that matter, none of the twelve were "Pharisees, scribes, or priests," those who were well-versed in scripture. As fishermen, it's likely they were illiterate.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 18, 2021, 07:43:43 AM
Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests.

Stupid Andrew! Misleading his brother. (John 1:41)

Oh, wait... Andrew was a Jew. ?? What the ... ? Oh, okay. He was just kidding around with Simon. It's all good.


Andrew and Peter, and for that matter, none of the twelve were "Pharisees, scribes, or priests," those who were well-versed in scripture. As fishermen, it's likely they were illiterate.

You wrote:

"Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah..."

Then:  "...and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests."

Andrew and Peter, and the rest of the twelve for that matter, were Jews.

As for your particular category,  stupid Pharisee Paul misleading the world. And stupid Pharisee/Saint Nicodemus being misled to the point of assisting in a "" royal" burial of Jesus.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 18, 2021, 01:59:19 PM
Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests.

Stupid Andrew! Misleading his brother. (John 1:41)

Oh, wait... Andrew was a Jew. ?? What the ... ? Oh, okay. He was just kidding around with Simon. It's all good.


Andrew and Peter, and for that matter, none of the twelve were "Pharisees, scribes, or priests," those who were well-versed in scripture. As fishermen, it's likely they were illiterate.

You wrote:

"Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah..."

Then:  "...and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests."

Andrew and Peter, and the rest of the twelve for that matter, were Jews.

As for your particular category,  stupid Pharisee Paul misleading the world. And stupid Pharisee/Saint Nicodemus being misled to the point of assisting in a "" royal" burial of Jesus.


And the crowd who yelled, "Crucify him," were also Jews.


Consider my use of "the Jews" to be like that of the Gospel of John. The meaning is really "some of the Jews," or "the Jewish leadership." Not all of the Jews. BTW, I am Jewish (through my mother). Her grandfather help start the first Orthodox Synagogue in Seattle in the late 1800s.
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 18, 2021, 02:42:00 PM
Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests.

Stupid Andrew! Misleading his brother. (John 1:41)

Oh, wait... Andrew was a Jew. ?? What the ... ? Oh, okay. He was just kidding around with Simon. It's all good.


Andrew and Peter, and for that matter, none of the twelve were "Pharisees, scribes, or priests," those who were well-versed in scripture. As fishermen, it's likely they were illiterate.

You wrote:

"Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah..."

Then:  "...and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests."

Andrew and Peter, and the rest of the twelve for that matter, were Jews.

As for your particular category,  stupid Pharisee Paul misleading the world. And stupid Pharisee/Saint Nicodemus being misled to the point of assisting in a "" royal" burial of Jesus.

And the crowd who yelled, "Crucify him," were also Jews.

Consider my use of "the Jews" to be like that of the Gospel of John. The meaning is really "some of the Jews," or "the Jewish leadership." Not all of the Jews. BTW, I am Jewish (through my mother). Her grandfather help start the first Orthodox Synagogue in Seattle in the late 1800s.

Well, you aren't the apostle John. So, you should be more specific and not attempt to evade and change categories, i.e., "Andrew and Peter, and for that matter, none of the twelve were "Pharisees, scribes, or priests,"..."
Title: Re: When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 18, 2021, 06:54:58 PM
Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests.

Stupid Andrew! Misleading his brother. (John 1:41)

Oh, wait... Andrew was a Jew. ?? What the ... ? Oh, okay. He was just kidding around with Simon. It's all good.


Andrew and Peter, and for that matter, none of the twelve were "Pharisees, scribes, or priests," those who were well-versed in scripture. As fishermen, it's likely they were illiterate.

You wrote:

"Yes, the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah..."

Then:  "...and especially those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests."

Andrew and Peter, and the rest of the twelve for that matter, were Jews.

As for your particular category,  stupid Pharisee Paul misleading the world. And stupid Pharisee/Saint Nicodemus being misled to the point of assisting in a "" royal" burial of Jesus.

And the crowd who yelled, "Crucify him," were also Jews.

Consider my use of "the Jews" to be like that of the Gospel of John. The meaning is really "some of the Jews," or "the Jewish leadership." Not all of the Jews. BTW, I am Jewish (through my mother). Her grandfather help start the first Orthodox Synagogue in Seattle in the late 1800s.

Well, you aren't the apostle John.



I assumed: (1) that you read the gospel of John and recognized that "the Jews" was a term that was used only of certain Jews who opposed Jesus; and not a term for the apostles who followed Jesus; and (2) that understanding would carry over into other things you read. I'm sorry that I gave you too much credit to understand what I wrote. I'll try to be more careful.



Quote
So, you should be more specific and not attempt to evade and change categories, i.e., "Andrew and Peter, and for that matter, none of the twelve were "Pharisees, scribes, or priests,"..."


First of all, in Mark, the earliest Gospel, there were no Jews or Gentiles following Jesus at the end. He wasn't the messiah they were expecting. (The other gospels have different endings.) Secondly, I had clarified and narrowed my category earlier when I wrote: "those who were well-versed in their Scriptures: Pharisees, scribes, and priests." These were the primary sources of opposition to Jesus.