7
   

Jesus Christ and Homosexuality.

 
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 04:42 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Got a scripture reference for that?


Oh come now. Haven't you sat through enough sermons to know that people constantly refer to Jesus as a shepherd of men?


I meant in regard to the roman slave that Jesus healed...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 04:50 pm
I met this guy that was half man and half sheep, I asked him how he was doing and he replied, "Not baaaaad." Confused
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 04:51 pm
Well, what is a Bible quote going to prove? If I quote to you the passage from the Bible, all you'll say is that it proves that Jesus healed a Centurion's slave and that's it. The Bible quote, however, will be out of historical context.

If you really want, the quote is below.

Quote:
Luke 7:1-10
When He had completed all His discourse in the hearing of the people, He went to Capernaum. And a centurion's slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored Him, saying, "He is worthy for You to grant this to him; for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue."

Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him, "Lord, do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof; for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."

Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith." When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.


However, I fail to see how that will help convince you I'm not talking complete garbage.

You see, when I stated pais, I forgot to mention that pais is the original Greek and that pais has a sexual connotation to it. Uios (which means son) could have been used if he was the Centurion's son or "duolos" if the writer meant a generic slave.

It is the original Greek we must refer to, not the English Bible quote.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 05:11 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Well, what is a Bible quote going to prove? If I quote to you the passage from the Bible, all you'll say is that it proves that Jesus healed a Centurion's slave and that's it. The Bible quote, however, will be out of historical context.

If you really want, the quote is below.

Quote:
Luke 7:1-10
When He had completed all His discourse in the hearing of the people, He went to Capernaum. And a centurion's slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored Him, saying, "He is worthy for You to grant this to him; for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue."

Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him, "Lord, do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof; for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."

Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith." When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.


However, I fail to see how that will help convince you I'm not talking complete garbage.

You see, when I stated pais, I forgot to mention that pais is the original Greek and that pais has a sexual connotation to it. Uios (which means son) could have been used if he was the Centurion's son or "duolos" if the writer meant a generic slave.

It is the original Greek we must refer to, not the English Bible quote.


I stand corrected, Jesus did heal a homosexual, but the record does not indicate that he healed the homosexual of their homosexuality. He healed him of a physical ailment (sick and about to die).

Why would the centurion ask Jesus to heal his (the centurion's) lover of his sexual preference?

Why would Jesus heal a homosexual of any disease if this practice/behavior was forbidden?
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 09:12 am
Pais....pai'ß....=a child, boy or girl
infants, children, servant, slave, an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister


word usage in the bible 24 times; servant 10, child 7, son (Christ) 2, son 1, manservant 1, maid 1, maiden 1, young man 1

I don't see where this means lover...
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 09:33 am
RexRed wrote:
. . . Why would Jesus heal a homosexual of any disease if this practice/behavior was forbidden?
Your assertion about the centurions sexual preference notwithstanding, all the folks Jesus healed were, in fact, sinners.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:36 am
Yes neologist ...good point Very Happy
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 11:06 am
neologist wrote:
RexRed wrote:
. . . Why would Jesus heal a homosexual of any disease if this practice/behavior was forbidden?
Your assertion about the centurions sexual preference notwithstanding, all the folks Jesus healed were, in fact, sinners.


That is incorrect I believe Neo, The first miracle Jesus performed was on a blind man no mention of sin whatsoever. Physical blindness has no common relationship to sin.

Matthew 9:27-30
27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us. 28 And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. 29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. 30 And their eyes were opened;


Comment: Leprosy is a highly contagious disease. Are you saying that all people who contracted this received it via way of sin? Couldn't some have contracted it by trying to help others?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 11:11 am
kate4christ03 wrote:
Pais....pai'ß....=a child, boy or girl
infants, children, servant, slave, an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister


word usage in the bible 24 times; servant 10, child 7, son (Christ) 2, son 1, manservant 1, maid 1, maiden 1, young man 1

I don't see where this means lover...


Roman guards were notorious for their practice of homosexuality. I tend to side with Wolf on this one.

I read once that there was an entire legion of Roman guards that were picked specifically for their penis size. I also read once that the Roman guards performed sodomy on Jesus during his torture.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 01:02 pm
REX im not arguing that romans werent into homosexual practices i know that was prevalent at that time but im saying that according to pais which is used in the bible not just for male slaves but also children, sons and slaves...with no sex involved, that its a stretch to say that this guy was gay......and as neo pointed out Christ healed many people that were in sin.......plus if we read the scripture it states this roman centurion was thought to be worthy of CHrist by the jews who followed the law...the law is clear that homosexuality is an abomination. if luke was aware that the centurion and the slave were gay its likely that the jews did also and they would not have praised him as they did........Christ was perfect...he had to fulfill the law in order for that to happen...It's silly in my opinion to allude that CHrist was ok with the gay lifestyle...he wasn't ....he was against all sin...........

and sorry i didnt post a reply to your post about the trinity...I have been out of town and when i got back i noticed the topic veered toward this subject ..but if you are interested on my views on the trinity they are posted on the trinity thread ( i think)
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 02:51 pm
kate4christ03 wrote:
REX im not arguing that romans werent into homosexual practices i know that was prevalent at that time but im saying that according to pais which is used in the bible not just for male slaves but also children, sons and slaves...with no sex involved, that its a stretch to say that this guy was gay......and as neo pointed out Christ healed many people that were in sin.......plus if we read the scripture it states this roman centurion was thought to be worthy of CHrist by the jews who followed the law...the law is clear that homosexuality is an abomination. if luke was aware that the centurion and the slave were gay its likely that the jews did also and they would not have praised him as they did........Christ was perfect...he had to fulfill the law in order for that to happen...It's silly in my opinion to allude that CHrist was ok with the gay lifestyle...he wasn't ....he was against all sin...........

and sorry i didnt post a reply to your post about the trinity...I have been out of town and when i got back i noticed the topic veered toward this subject ..but if you are interested on my views on the trinity they are posted on the trinity thread ( i think)


The idea of a man (roman centurion) having a male servant that their only goal in life is to please another man. It is only a hop skip jump in logic to infer that this relationship is somehow less than what it seems on the surface. It is as if the Bible is purposely incriminating Jesus by having him associate himself with these sort in the first place.

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

How did he condemn sin?

Jesus condemned it with his blood. He condemned sin in the flesh with holy blood. Flesh and blood. The life in Jesus blood did not come from Adam but from God. This holy blood in Jesus Christ's veins was the reason for the grace God was able to show him. This was why Jesus was "he who knew no sin" because his physical blood was new and not passed on from Adam. We are partakers of flesh and blood but Jesus only took part, what part did he take? He took the flesh part from humans but the blood part Jesus received from God.

Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Comment:
It is interesting to note here that menstration is a feminine issue.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 03:48 pm
Ps 119:45
And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 05:43 pm
RexRed wrote:
neologist wrote:
RexRed wrote:
. . . Why would Jesus heal a homosexual of any disease if this practice/behavior was forbidden?
Your assertion about the centurions sexual preference notwithstanding, all the folks Jesus healed were, in fact, sinners.


That is incorrect I believe Neo, The first miracle Jesus performed was on a blind man no mention of sin whatsoever. Physical blindness has no common relationship to sin.

Matthew 9:27-30
27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us. 28 And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. 29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. 30 And their eyes were opened;


Comment: Leprosy is a highly contagious disease. Are you saying that all people who contracted this received it via way of sin? Couldn't some have contracted it by trying to help others?
"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12)
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 06:10 pm
neologist wrote:
RexRed wrote:
neologist wrote:
RexRed wrote:
. . . Why would Jesus heal a homosexual of any disease if this practice/behavior was forbidden?
Your assertion about the centurions sexual preference notwithstanding, all the folks Jesus healed were, in fact, sinners.


That is incorrect I believe Neo, The first miracle Jesus performed was on a blind man no mention of sin whatsoever. Physical blindness has no common relationship to sin.

Matthew 9:27-30
27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us. 28 And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. 29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. 30 And their eyes were opened;


Comment: Leprosy is a highly contagious disease. Are you saying that all people who contracted this received it via way of sin? Couldn't some have contracted it by trying to help others?
"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12)


Wikipedia says that Parkinson's disease is a form of leprosy, then the last pope John Paul was a leper. He lived a long and good life for a leper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy

This article states that leprosy is not very "contagious"... compared to what though... measles, chicken pox, the flu?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 06:57 pm
What are you saying about sin?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 07:08 pm
neologist wrote:
What are you saying about sin?


There are two ways to live life without hypocrisy,

One is to live under law and sin and the other is to live under liberty and grace.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 07:45 pm
RexRed wrote:
neologist wrote:
What are you saying about sin?


There are two ways to live life without hypocrisy,

One is to live under law and sin and the other is to live under liberty and grace.
If you had no sin, you would never die.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 07:48 pm
RexRed wrote:
neologist wrote:
What are you saying about sin?


There are two ways to live life without hypocrisy,

One is to live under law and sin and the other is to live under liberty and grace.


As Neo said.... without sin you would not die. I will add.... without grace you would remain in sin.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 04:43 am
kate4christ03 wrote:
REX im not arguing that romans werent into homosexual practices i know that was prevalent at that time but im saying that according to pais which is used in the bible not just for male slaves but also children, sons and slaves...with no sex involved, that its a stretch to say that this guy was gay


It's not that much of a stretch. As I stated before, there are other words which could have been used that meant son or slave. Pais means slave boy and it was very common for Romans to have sex with such people. So, it's not really a stretch of the imagination.

Quote:
the law is clear that homosexuality is an abomination.


Yes, a strange word that. That part of the Bible is the part that Christians aren't supposed to follow. The original Hebrew is to'ebah, which is a religious term usually reserved for idolatory. It is the only part of that section which uses the word.

Why is that the only sexual sin as described in that part of the Bible that uses a word reserved for idolatory? It can therefore be interpreted as referring to temple prostitution.

Furthermore, if you insist in the Corinthians part being the Christian condemnation of homosexuality, that can also be interpreted in a different way.

The original Greek text describes the behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Malakoi means "loose" or "pliable", as in the phrase "loose morals", implying "unethical behaviour". In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship."

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes.

Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)."

Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai."

Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 08:09 am
neologist wrote:
RexRed wrote:
neologist wrote:
What are you saying about sin?


There are two ways to live life without hypocrisy,

One is to live under law and sin and the other is to live under liberty and grace.
If you had no sin, you would never die.


Die? What is more important physical life or spiritual life? Adam and Eve died spiritually before they died physically.

The law was a result of this spiritual death. Christ was a result of this spiritual death. The spirit is the guide in liberty not the law. The law was weak. It relied on man/prophets to interpret it. The very prophets were battling with the spiritual death that Adam and Eve brought about. They had spirit upon them not within them as we do today. The law only "covered" their sins like a garbage can lid instead of today where the spirit cleanses us from sin. They had the righteousness of the law, we have the righteousness of God.. This is spiritual life.

To live simultaneously with law and liberty is the height of hypocrisy. Law towards others and liberty toward self?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 02:09:48