"I was asking about your source for the meaning of the word Rape in context with the verses you mentioned that contain the word."
The original KJV says "lay hold" of an UNbetrothed woman, while other translations like the NIV and the Good News Bible actually use the word "rape." Both terms indicate a degree of force. In any event the man in Deu. 22:28-29 violates the eighth commandment at the VERY least. And the woman pays the greater part of the price, by having to marry him. In... (Cont.)
I was asking about your source for the meaning of the word Rape in context with the verses you mentioned that contain the word. I can't understand your post nor can i find it. anyway you can send me the source I think in a PM without it being confusing. Thanks.
"However isn't saying that something is okay because Jesus never said anything about it kind of putting words into his mouth?"
Perhaps, yet I myself state Christ's said nothing about homosexuality not to suggest He neccessarily believed it was acceptable but as a reminder to those who would use and abuse His teachings to even vaguely and very WRONGLY suggest that He was saying it wasn't.
@clay56 I was asking about your source for the meaning of the word Rape in context with the verses you mentioned that contain the word. I can't understand your post nor can i find it. anyway you can send me the source I think in a PM without it being confusing. Thanks
...Exodus 21:7 there is the TOO clear indication that the woman is LAWFULLY bethrothed to the man. It's why I think you may be confusing the UNlawful acts described Deu. 22:28-29 with this verse.
The question is wheather or not our Lord is still holding us to laws like Deu. 22:28-29 and Deu. 25:11-12. If not, then why do they not apply when Lev. 18:22 still does? How exactally did Christ "put to rest" such a delima?
"...Jesus's sacrifice put them to rest. however there is no way that something as important as homosexuality would be left to question."
While not outside the realm of possibility, this is a personal interpetation of His actions. His upholding certain laws as with Matt 19:18 while refuting others in 19:9 leaves laws in Lev. 18:22 as well as Deu. 22:28-29 in question. So if you believe the former verse MUST be applied, you should probably have a SOLID explanation why the latter shouldn't.
these other God's. Homosexuality was a result of their abandoment of the God of Abraham. These other God's if I remember greek mythology correctly, advocated Free Love, Something that the God of Abraham does not do. Thus Pauls God punished them with Lust for the same sex.
Man was made for woman, woman was made out of mans rib. What's to say that homosexuality isn't one of those destfull things that God speaks of in that verse you mentioned. Leviticus: I'm sorry but that's very clear that same sex is a no no. Why would it just be for a priest and not for everyone else? Romans: that is not what it sounds like to me. He is saying that they exchanged the truth for a lie, that no longer was one God enough but they had all of these cnt.
"Leviticus: I'm sorry but that's very clear that same sex is a no no."
The same Leviticus that calls for the killing of children cursing their parents.
"Romans: that is not what it sounds like to me. He is saying that they exchanged the truth for a lie, that no longer was one God enough but they had all of these..."
"They" abandoned Christianity altogether. Yet would their affections have been any less "vile" had they been heterosexual and unwed? And would it reflect all heterosexuals?
@clay56 I don't understand the second part of your comment but the first I do. The reason why there are some harsh laws in the old testament is because they wanted to keep their community pure from evil as there were were several places that were destroyed because they fell from the grace of God. Jonah was swallowed by a well because he refused to go to witness to a town that God was going to destroy if they didn't repent because they had fallen from his cnt.
" The reason why there are some harsh laws in the old testament is because they wanted to keep their community pure from evil as there were were several places that were destroyed because they fell from the grace of God."
Certainly the historical context you described makes these and other laws understandable but no less morally reprehensible, making Leviticus and overall problematic moral guide at best in today's churches.
@clay56 But you forget that Jesus came to Fullfill the law. At the time Jesus came Jewish law was very problematic as you put it. However you have to remember that Moses and his people were forced to wander the desert for fourty years because they did not heed God's word. Think about it if you wandered fourty day's in the desert wouldn't you want strick guidlines to make sure that they weren't forced out of the promiseland. cnt.
"However you have to remember that Moses and his people were forced to wander the desert for fourty years because they did not heed God's word."
It was a body of laws created for a different people in a different time and place. Im not saying one must adhere to all or none of it. But if more read ALL of it, then it may be better understood why Christians differ.
@clay56 (quote) It was a body of laws created for a different people in a different time and place. Im not saying one must adhere to all or none of it. But if more read ALL of it, then it may be better understood why Christians differ. (End)
I'd have to look into how much Christians differ however Mattew 5: 17-20 makes it apparent that Jesus's coming and his sacrifice did not abolish the laws of moses but fullfilled it.
"Mattew 5: 17-20 makes it apparent that Jesus's coming and his sacrifice did not abolish the laws of moses but fullfilled it.."
We're definately split there since again Christ overturned parts of Mosaic Law perhaps most notably in Matt. 19:9. So again, having fulfilled the Law with His coming, He had the authority to change what had been arguably miswritten and/or misapplied. This again still leaves the rest of the laws He didn't address in question.
@clay56 But your overlooking verse 18 of Matthew 5: 17-20 where it say's 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
i take the last three lines as to mean until Jesus's returns, destroy's the anti-christ with his breath at the battle of Armageddon and reigns on earth for a thousand years nothing about the law changes.
"But your overlooking verse 18 of Matthew 5: 17-20..."
And because of this, you believe Christ was saying that ALL the Laws He didn't mention should be kept? Do you then believe you that a woman is in sin for grabbing her husband's attacker by the groin (Deu. 25:11-12) or that a virgin is in sin for refusing to marry the man who raped her as commanded in (Deu. 22:28-29)? These are but a couple of Mosaic laws Christ did not speak of that are considered morally uphorrid in today's churches.
@clay56 I don't know everything this is a good question to ask a pastor of a church. My pastor recently explained this but I can't remember exactly how he put it. However isn't saying that something is okay because Jesus never said anything about it kind of putting words into his mouth? Sometimes I wish whoever wrote those odd ball laws never would have wrote them because it confuses people cnt.
@justtoexercise When you try to explain to them that Jesus's sacrifice didn't abolish everything in the old testament. I was once told that some of the laws were put into place more for the sake of the Godliness of the tribes of Israel. You have to remember that several times in the bible they are placed in bondage,or lose their city because they fall into ungodliness. Those sort of laws were put into place to show their zealousness to God and to try and keep everyone away from sin. cnt.
,,,To another man upon which she is betrothed to him. Deu. 25:11-12 speaks of an UNbetrothed woman who is "siezed" according to the New KJV. Certainly only our Lord can know with absolute assurance, but the passage strongly suggests the act committed by the man is against the woman's will. Christ is not recorded as having addressed this law or homosexuality in the Gospels. Thus gay Christian advocates and opponents are left to grapple and debate over which directives are still... (Cont.)
@justtoexercise I think I left the rest of the comment unfinished. Thus because they were for this reason Jesus's sacrifice put them to rest. however there is no way that something as important as homosexuality would be left to question. The way the bible talks about it there is no question whatsoever that homosexuality is a sin.
I do find the one about rape interesting. did you know that rape has two different meanings. It could mean what we all know it means today or it could mean to forcefully carry someone away. there are ways on the internet to find out the context of words in the bible. Perhasp rape in this case means carrying someone away. Perhasp this was a way for someone who had nothing to trade for a bride to obtain a bride cnt.
think about it,back then a man had to provide proof of wealth to the father of the bride in exchange for the daughters hand. If they had nothing to give perhasp they could carry a woman off and in that way choose a bride.
"I do find the one about rape interesting. did you know that rape has two different meanings." Many Hebrew terms have several different meanings. For instance, the Hebrew word for "know" ("yadda") has eleven different meanings. Yet ONLY one is used in the teaching of the acts of the men of Sodom demanding entrance in Lot's house as if none of the TEN other definitions could be true. And your alternate "rape" definition is closer to Ex. 21:7 in which a father sells his daughter... (Cont.)
"What is your source..." Im guessing you're asking about "yada" in relation to Gen. 19:5...?
I came on the basic list at intimacywithgod (dot) com. But multiple definitions as well as numerous and different usages of the term "yada" (sorry for the typo in the last post!) are found at studybible.info.
The precise url is studybible.info followed by a forward slash, then "strongs," another forward slash, then "H3045," no breaks.
Couldn't post it any other way without getting an error message. :)
However in the book of Daniel Jerusalem was taken over by Babylon, and the coming of Jesus was prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27 the coming of Jesus was prophesied in a prophesy of a 27 week period in which jerusalem and the temple would be rebuilt, Jesus's ministry would come and the temple would once again be destroyed. all this happened within in a 27 week period. Not in weeks as we know them, I think weeks and day's were calculated differently back then.
"I don't understand the second part of your comment..."
Okay, let's try again...
If the acts described by Paul had been heterosexual and the participants UNwed, would the passage be used to condemn ALL heterosexual relationships, INCLUDING husbands and wives? And yet as it is, it seems generally acceptable to use it EVEN in the condemnation of same gender marriages. Such constitutes a glaring double standard between the orientations.
@clay56 Okay I understand what you are saying. It has to do with the fact that some think Paul saw some religious orgie. if this is so than he is condeming the orgie but he also points out that God abandoned them for performing this religious ceremony. Because God left them they lost thier ability to Judge right from wrong. Thus they became aflicted with lusting after the same sex because God was no longer with them. cnt.
"...,It has to do with the fact that some think Paul saw some religious orgie. if this is so than he is condeming the orgie but he also points out that God abandoned them for performing this religious ceremony."
Actually the people in this passage FIRST abandoned our Lord. This is not reflective of gay Christians who would too likely not condone people of any orientation participating in such a function.
@clay56 No no no I am trying to get you to realize there is no such thing as a gay Christian. They are as much a cult as catholics are. The homosexuality that happened in Romans is a result of the fact that they abandoned God for the Greek Gods and performed Sex rituals in their name. I'll go back to what I said before Jesus came to Fullfill the law, he said to the prophets all the things they needed to change cnt.
"No no no I am trying to get you to realize there is no such thing as a gay Christian. They are as much a cult as catholics are."
Most Catholics probably believed protestantism was no more than a "cult" in it's infancy. Many Hebrews probably believed the same about the first Christians. Their beliefs about either were not neccessarily any more true than yours about gay Christians.
No problem there since I don't personally believe respect for one's beliefs should depend first and foremost on the level of agreement. It's improbable we could both be right. It's less so we could both be mistaken and that a third point of view could be more in line with our Lord's will. Im just glad forgiveness is in reach when we ask it for ourselves and EACH OTHER.
Matthew 5: 17-18 says: 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished
Yet again, having fulfilled it He had the authority to change what was quite arguably miswritten "from the beginning" as stated in Matt. 19:9 in the case of divorce. He overturned the dietary directives as well. But again, if even one law is changed, it leaves the rest that go unmentioned in question.
@clay56 But Jesus put those questions to rest with Matthew 5: 17-18. 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I don't know why we over look divorce but alot of churches recommend counciling first before considering divorce.
"But Jesus put those questions to rest with Matthew 5: 17-18."
Christ did not destroy the Law but DID revise and even overturn parts of it. This leaves questions as far as the laws that go unmentioned that are anything BUT "put to rest."
@clay56 If you don't understand this I'm sorry a light bulb went on when I was reading your comment but I couldn't quite put it into words and I had to contend with You tubes word limitations!
Grace. Once Christ came and died for our sins there was no longer a need for such harsh laws that often resulted in death by stoning, in which the Jew's thought would show their zealousness for God, because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice and one only needed to confess their sins to God and live a Christ like existance.
@clay56 Wrong because Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
This means that he did not come to strike the prophets down but to fill them with the holy spirit to give them the knowledge that they needed. Jesus spoke out to the prophets about what they were doing cnt.
@clay56 So in this aspect if Jesus's purpose was to strike down the belief that homosexuality was a sin he would have said so because Jesus came to fullfill the law. So the fact that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality works more in my favor then it does yours.
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. .....
If Jesus was accepting of homosexuality, why would he say in in Matthew 11:23"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in SODOM, it would have remained until this day". So in other words, if the Sodomites were righteous, they would not be destroyed. The practise of "homosexuality" is described in Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.”
No one should ever use The Bible as any sort of source for ethical or intellectual reference, in my opinion. The Bible has done NOTHING for social, technological, or moral progress in this world, so why argue in its part?
I am a gay, but my gayishness is nothing in compare with my faith in God. I sincerely believe in God and i have deep spirituality on God. So i'm a bit surprised that you people kind of blaming God. Homosexuality exist, they do. But as long as i lived, i prefer to live under God's will and if God don't want me to be with my same sex partner, then i will. Being patient in my entire life for God is better than everything. And many gay people feels the same
Great video answered everything I wanted to know... You can't ask the average Christian about these things because their usually the one speaking in tongue or passing out or holding god hates fag signs... if you get my drift.
Romans 3:19 "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law" Unless you are addressing Bronze Age, Hebrew gays there is no reason for them to listen to you or to obey your archaic, irrelevant Law. 1Corinthians 5:12 "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" Unless you have authority that Paul lacked, you have no business judging anyone outside your archaic, irrelevant religion.
As I watched this video out of curiosity. I was wondering what scriptures you would use to explain you case. I noticed that as you read the scriptures you fully read them until you came to the fornicator word in I Corinthians 6:9, You said blaa blaa blaa. Since same sex marriage is not honored in most states I have a question. Was that coincidence that you skipped past that? You must be married to engage in the act and remember Matthew 5:27-30.
It depends on what they attack you with. But it's never a good idea to say something just to make someone feel stupid. If you want them to actually listen to your arguments then you have to respect them. You're not always gonna get them to come fully over to your side, but if they take a step in the right direction that is a great thing!
"Children are coming forth gay, austistic, children are coming forth with what humans call maladies, and what we call determination to be secure in their teaching of unconditional love"
Rules against sodomy in Leviticus 18 and 20 are not legislating for ordinary human affairs. Throughout, the authors of Leviticus are chiefly concerned with temple ritual. ritual bestiality, child sacrifice, and the cultic use of menstrual blood in sorcery. The verses against sodomy (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) forbid temple prostitution: which defiles the land, that concerns Leviticus.
Everybody reads the Bible selectively. If people followed every single biblical ruling to the letter, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and refuse to judge other people, which is plainly not the case. Christians would also be obliged to eat kosher meat (Acts 15:20) and stone their disobedient sons to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The world has changed practices that were acceptable 2k years ago have become abhorrent.
By the last few seconds do you mean the part after the "More Time Spent Talking to the Mac" slide? If so thanks! I wrote that as a revelation years ago and thought I'd say it.
LOL It just occurred to me that I used an expression which might not make sense if you don't speak English all the time (though with you, its easy to forget that you dont!). Basically having a "nickel for every time something happens" means you'd be very rich because that thing happens so often. :)
Great video. Nicely done.
PaulOnHomosexuality 2 months ago
"I was asking about your source for the meaning of the word Rape in context with the verses you mentioned that contain the word."
The original KJV says "lay hold" of an UNbetrothed woman, while other translations like the NIV and the Good News Bible actually use the word "rape." Both terms indicate a degree of force. In any event the man in Deu. 22:28-29 violates the eighth commandment at the VERY least. And the woman pays the greater part of the price, by having to marry him. In... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
I was asking about your source for the meaning of the word Rape in context with the verses you mentioned that contain the word. I can't understand your post nor can i find it. anyway you can send me the source I think in a PM without it being confusing. Thanks.
justtoexercise 6 months ago
"However isn't saying that something is okay because Jesus never said anything about it kind of putting words into his mouth?"
Perhaps, yet I myself state Christ's said nothing about homosexuality not to suggest He neccessarily believed it was acceptable but as a reminder to those who would use and abuse His teachings to even vaguely and very WRONGLY suggest that He was saying it wasn't.
clay56 6 months ago
@clay56 I was asking about your source for the meaning of the word Rape in context with the verses you mentioned that contain the word. I can't understand your post nor can i find it. anyway you can send me the source I think in a PM without it being confusing. Thanks
justtoexercise 6 months ago
Part 2
...Exodus 21:7 there is the TOO clear indication that the woman is LAWFULLY bethrothed to the man. It's why I think you may be confusing the UNlawful acts described Deu. 22:28-29 with this verse.
The question is wheather or not our Lord is still holding us to laws like Deu. 22:28-29 and Deu. 25:11-12. If not, then why do they not apply when Lev. 18:22 still does? How exactally did Christ "put to rest" such a delima?
clay56 6 months ago
"...Jesus's sacrifice put them to rest. however there is no way that something as important as homosexuality would be left to question."
While not outside the realm of possibility, this is a personal interpetation of His actions. His upholding certain laws as with Matt 19:18 while refuting others in 19:9 leaves laws in Lev. 18:22 as well as Deu. 22:28-29 in question. So if you believe the former verse MUST be applied, you should probably have a SOLID explanation why the latter shouldn't.
clay56 6 months ago
these other God's. Homosexuality was a result of their abandoment of the God of Abraham. These other God's if I remember greek mythology correctly, advocated Free Love, Something that the God of Abraham does not do. Thus Pauls God punished them with Lust for the same sex.
justtoexercise 1 year ago
read romans 1:18-26
Man was made for woman, woman was made out of mans rib. What's to say that homosexuality isn't one of those destfull things that God speaks of in that verse you mentioned. Leviticus: I'm sorry but that's very clear that same sex is a no no. Why would it just be for a priest and not for everyone else? Romans: that is not what it sounds like to me. He is saying that they exchanged the truth for a lie, that no longer was one God enough but they had all of these cnt.
justtoexercise 1 year ago
"Leviticus: I'm sorry but that's very clear that same sex is a no no."
The same Leviticus that calls for the killing of children cursing their parents.
"Romans: that is not what it sounds like to me. He is saying that they exchanged the truth for a lie, that no longer was one God enough but they had all of these..."
"They" abandoned Christianity altogether. Yet would their affections have been any less "vile" had they been heterosexual and unwed? And would it reflect all heterosexuals?
clay56 11 months ago
@clay56 I don't understand the second part of your comment but the first I do. The reason why there are some harsh laws in the old testament is because they wanted to keep their community pure from evil as there were were several places that were destroyed because they fell from the grace of God. Jonah was swallowed by a well because he refused to go to witness to a town that God was going to destroy if they didn't repent because they had fallen from his cnt.
justtoexercise 10 months ago
" The reason why there are some harsh laws in the old testament is because they wanted to keep their community pure from evil as there were were several places that were destroyed because they fell from the grace of God."
Certainly the historical context you described makes these and other laws understandable but no less morally reprehensible, making Leviticus and overall problematic moral guide at best in today's churches.
clay56 10 months ago
@clay56 But you forget that Jesus came to Fullfill the law. At the time Jesus came Jewish law was very problematic as you put it. However you have to remember that Moses and his people were forced to wander the desert for fourty years because they did not heed God's word. Think about it if you wandered fourty day's in the desert wouldn't you want strick guidlines to make sure that they weren't forced out of the promiseland. cnt.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"However you have to remember that Moses and his people were forced to wander the desert for fourty years because they did not heed God's word."
It was a body of laws created for a different people in a different time and place. Im not saying one must adhere to all or none of it. But if more read ALL of it, then it may be better understood why Christians differ.
clay56 7 months ago
@clay56 (quote) It was a body of laws created for a different people in a different time and place. Im not saying one must adhere to all or none of it. But if more read ALL of it, then it may be better understood why Christians differ. (End)
I'd have to look into how much Christians differ however Mattew 5: 17-20 makes it apparent that Jesus's coming and his sacrifice did not abolish the laws of moses but fullfilled it.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
"Mattew 5: 17-20 makes it apparent that Jesus's coming and his sacrifice did not abolish the laws of moses but fullfilled it.."
We're definately split there since again Christ overturned parts of Mosaic Law perhaps most notably in Matt. 19:9. So again, having fulfilled the Law with His coming, He had the authority to change what had been arguably miswritten and/or misapplied. This again still leaves the rest of the laws He didn't address in question.
clay56 7 months ago
@clay56 But your overlooking verse 18 of Matthew 5: 17-20 where it say's 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
i take the last three lines as to mean until Jesus's returns, destroy's the anti-christ with his breath at the battle of Armageddon and reigns on earth for a thousand years nothing about the law changes.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 7 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 7 months ago
"But your overlooking verse 18 of Matthew 5: 17-20..."
And because of this, you believe Christ was saying that ALL the Laws He didn't mention should be kept? Do you then believe you that a woman is in sin for grabbing her husband's attacker by the groin (Deu. 25:11-12) or that a virgin is in sin for refusing to marry the man who raped her as commanded in (Deu. 22:28-29)? These are but a couple of Mosaic laws Christ did not speak of that are considered morally uphorrid in today's churches.
clay56 7 months ago
@clay56 I don't know everything this is a good question to ask a pastor of a church. My pastor recently explained this but I can't remember exactly how he put it. However isn't saying that something is okay because Jesus never said anything about it kind of putting words into his mouth? Sometimes I wish whoever wrote those odd ball laws never would have wrote them because it confuses people cnt.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
@justtoexercise When you try to explain to them that Jesus's sacrifice didn't abolish everything in the old testament. I was once told that some of the laws were put into place more for the sake of the Godliness of the tribes of Israel. You have to remember that several times in the bible they are placed in bondage,or lose their city because they fall into ungodliness. Those sort of laws were put into place to show their zealousness to God and to try and keep everyone away from sin. cnt.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
Part 2
,,,To another man upon which she is betrothed to him. Deu. 25:11-12 speaks of an UNbetrothed woman who is "siezed" according to the New KJV. Certainly only our Lord can know with absolute assurance, but the passage strongly suggests the act committed by the man is against the woman's will. Christ is not recorded as having addressed this law or homosexuality in the Gospels. Thus gay Christian advocates and opponents are left to grapple and debate over which directives are still... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
@justtoexercise I think I left the rest of the comment unfinished. Thus because they were for this reason Jesus's sacrifice put them to rest. however there is no way that something as important as homosexuality would be left to question. The way the bible talks about it there is no question whatsoever that homosexuality is a sin.
justtoexercise 6 months ago
I do find the one about rape interesting. did you know that rape has two different meanings. It could mean what we all know it means today or it could mean to forcefully carry someone away. there are ways on the internet to find out the context of words in the bible. Perhasp rape in this case means carrying someone away. Perhasp this was a way for someone who had nothing to trade for a bride to obtain a bride cnt.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
Part 3
... Devinely revelent and which were simply important to the culture of a past era.
clay56 6 months ago
think about it,back then a man had to provide proof of wealth to the father of the bride in exchange for the daughters hand. If they had nothing to give perhasp they could carry a woman off and in that way choose a bride.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I do find the one about rape interesting. did you know that rape has two different meanings." Many Hebrew terms have several different meanings. For instance, the Hebrew word for "know" ("yadda") has eleven different meanings. Yet ONLY one is used in the teaching of the acts of the men of Sodom demanding entrance in Lot's house as if none of the TEN other definitions could be true. And your alternate "rape" definition is closer to Ex. 21:7 in which a father sells his daughter... (Cont.)
clay56 6 months ago
@clay56 What is your source I'm not going to just take your word for it.
justtoexercise 6 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"What is your source..." Im guessing you're asking about "yada" in relation to Gen. 19:5...?
I came on the basic list at intimacywithgod (dot) com. But multiple definitions as well as numerous and different usages of the term "yada" (sorry for the typo in the last post!) are found at studybible.info.
The precise url is studybible.info followed by a forward slash, then "strongs," another forward slash, then "H3045," no breaks.
Couldn't post it any other way without getting an error message. :)
clay56 6 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 6 months ago
This is the last set of replies, I no longer desire to carry on this conversation.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I no longer desire to carry on this conversation."
Im sincerely sorry to hear this as I've enjoyed the discussion very much.
"Thank you for being cool with this,,,,"
Again, no problem.
"...you have no idea how many mean people I come across on youtube."
I have a pretty good idea since they're on BOTH sides of the gap that making up this debate.
clay56 7 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 7 months ago
However in the book of Daniel Jerusalem was taken over by Babylon, and the coming of Jesus was prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27 the coming of Jesus was prophesied in a prophesy of a 27 week period in which jerusalem and the temple would be rebuilt, Jesus's ministry would come and the temple would once again be destroyed. all this happened within in a 27 week period. Not in weeks as we know them, I think weeks and day's were calculated differently back then.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 10 months ago
"I don't understand the second part of your comment..."
Okay, let's try again...
If the acts described by Paul had been heterosexual and the participants UNwed, would the passage be used to condemn ALL heterosexual relationships, INCLUDING husbands and wives? And yet as it is, it seems generally acceptable to use it EVEN in the condemnation of same gender marriages. Such constitutes a glaring double standard between the orientations.
clay56 10 months ago
@clay56 Okay I understand what you are saying. It has to do with the fact that some think Paul saw some religious orgie. if this is so than he is condeming the orgie but he also points out that God abandoned them for performing this religious ceremony. Because God left them they lost thier ability to Judge right from wrong. Thus they became aflicted with lusting after the same sex because God was no longer with them. cnt.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
"...,It has to do with the fact that some think Paul saw some religious orgie. if this is so than he is condeming the orgie but he also points out that God abandoned them for performing this religious ceremony."
Actually the people in this passage FIRST abandoned our Lord. This is not reflective of gay Christians who would too likely not condone people of any orientation participating in such a function.
clay56 7 months ago
@clay56 No no no I am trying to get you to realize there is no such thing as a gay Christian. They are as much a cult as catholics are. The homosexuality that happened in Romans is a result of the fact that they abandoned God for the Greek Gods and performed Sex rituals in their name. I'll go back to what I said before Jesus came to Fullfill the law, he said to the prophets all the things they needed to change cnt.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
"No no no I am trying to get you to realize there is no such thing as a gay Christian. They are as much a cult as catholics are."
Most Catholics probably believed protestantism was no more than a "cult" in it's infancy. Many Hebrews probably believed the same about the first Christians. Their beliefs about either were not neccessarily any more true than yours about gay Christians.
clay56 7 months ago
@clay56 Lets just agree to disagree I hope you will know the truth oneday.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Lets just agree to disagree..."
No problem there since I don't personally believe respect for one's beliefs should depend first and foremost on the level of agreement. It's improbable we could both be right. It's less so we could both be mistaken and that a third point of view could be more in line with our Lord's will. Im just glad forgiveness is in reach when we ask it for ourselves and EACH OTHER.
"...With God ALL Things Are Possible."
Matt. 19:26
clay56 7 months ago
@clay56 Thank you for being cool with this, you have no idea how many mean people I come across on youtube.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matthew 5: 17-18 says: 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished
justtoexercise 7 months ago
also observe that in my first reply to this i said Prophets when I meant to say Pharisee's.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
So Matthew 5:17 -18 proves that because Jesus didn't say anything about Homosexuality the laws against homosexuality in the bible still stand.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Jesus came to Fullfill the law,..."
Yet again, having fulfilled it He had the authority to change what was quite arguably miswritten "from the beginning" as stated in Matt. 19:9 in the case of divorce. He overturned the dietary directives as well. But again, if even one law is changed, it leaves the rest that go unmentioned in question.
clay56 7 months ago
@clay56 But Jesus put those questions to rest with Matthew 5: 17-18. 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I don't know why we over look divorce but alot of churches recommend counciling first before considering divorce.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
"But Jesus put those questions to rest with Matthew 5: 17-18."
Christ did not destroy the Law but DID revise and even overturn parts of it. This leaves questions as far as the laws that go unmentioned that are anything BUT "put to rest."
clay56 7 months ago
@clay56 If you don't understand this I'm sorry a light bulb went on when I was reading your comment but I couldn't quite put it into words and I had to contend with You tubes word limitations!
justtoexercise 7 months ago
"I had to contend with You tubes word limitations! "
While we may differ on our Lord's will regarding gay Christians, I respect your views. And I CERTAINLY understand how annoying YT posting can be. :)
clay56 7 months ago
Grace. Once Christ came and died for our sins there was no longer a need for such harsh laws that often resulted in death by stoning, in which the Jew's thought would show their zealousness for God, because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice and one only needed to confess their sins to God and live a Christ like existance.
justtoexercise 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Christ was the ultimate sacrifice and one only needed to confess their sins to God and live a Christ like existance."
Christ never spoke to all homosexual unions, so their being sin is prettymuch presumption.
clay56 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@clay56 Wrong because Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
This means that he did not come to strike the prophets down but to fill them with the holy spirit to give them the knowledge that they needed. Jesus spoke out to the prophets about what they were doing cnt.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
@clay56 So in this aspect if Jesus's purpose was to strike down the belief that homosexuality was a sin he would have said so because Jesus came to fullfill the law. So the fact that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality works more in my favor then it does yours.
justtoexercise 7 months ago
@clay56 No it's not because of matthew 5: 17-20
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. .....
justtoexercise 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Jesus was accepting of homosexuality, why would he say in in Matthew 11:23"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in SODOM, it would have remained until this day". So in other words, if the Sodomites were righteous, they would not be destroyed. The practise of "homosexuality" is described in Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.”
AlexzandrSpringvale 1 year ago
But you were cute and informative, thanks.
UlverKM 1 year ago
No one should ever use The Bible as any sort of source for ethical or intellectual reference, in my opinion. The Bible has done NOTHING for social, technological, or moral progress in this world, so why argue in its part?
UlverKM 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i have an analogy for you people.
I am a gay, but my gayishness is nothing in compare with my faith in God. I sincerely believe in God and i have deep spirituality on God. So i'm a bit surprised that you people kind of blaming God. Homosexuality exist, they do. But as long as i lived, i prefer to live under God's will and if God don't want me to be with my same sex partner, then i will. Being patient in my entire life for God is better than everything. And many gay people feels the same
maroonvelvetgirl 1 year ago
Great video answered everything I wanted to know... You can't ask the average Christian about these things because their usually the one speaking in tongue or passing out or holding god hates fag signs... if you get my drift.
46and2just 1 year ago
Really enjoyed your well in depth overview on the bible and homosexuality. See I would enjoy studying the b
46and2just 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Another passage the Bible folks
like to sweep under the carpet
is the story of the love affair
between King David and Prince Jonathan.
It actually turned out a lot better
than David's adulterous, murderous HETERO affair.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
As I watched this video out of curiosity. I was wondering what scriptures you would use to explain you case. I noticed that as you read the scriptures you fully read them until you came to the fornicator word in I Corinthians 6:9, You said blaa blaa blaa. Since same sex marriage is not honored in most states I have a question. Was that coincidence that you skipped past that? You must be married to engage in the act and remember Matthew 5:27-30.
TheMarcou 2 years ago
@TheMarcou you're stupid, obviously if being gay is ok, then gay marriage is ok.
Your argument is fucked
Rickytastic 2 years ago
@TheMarcou also, marriage is identified in the eyes of God, not the eyes of ''the state''
oh no! the state wouldn't let us sign papers! Who cares if God recognizes our union if THE STATE is ''NOT HONORING'' it!?!?!?!?
God: ''Ya, if the law is against it, I'm against it''
SARCASM
Rickytastic 2 years ago
ok if i were suddenly verbaly atacked got sumthing simple for me to say n make em feelstupid? :o
dolefruitycup 3 years ago
It depends on what they attack you with. But it's never a good idea to say something just to make someone feel stupid. If you want them to actually listen to your arguments then you have to respect them. You're not always gonna get them to come fully over to your side, but if they take a step in the right direction that is a great thing!
NoWallsMinistry 3 years ago
Abraham San Antonio, TX workshop in 2007
"Children are coming forth gay, austistic, children are coming forth with what humans call maladies, and what we call determination to be secure in their teaching of unconditional love"
Johric01 3 years ago
Rules against sodomy in Leviticus 18 and 20 are not legislating for ordinary human affairs. Throughout, the authors of Leviticus are chiefly concerned with temple ritual. ritual bestiality, child sacrifice, and the cultic use of menstrual blood in sorcery. The verses against sodomy (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) forbid temple prostitution: which defiles the land, that concerns Leviticus.
Johric01 3 years ago
Everybody reads the Bible selectively. If people followed every single biblical ruling to the letter, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and refuse to judge other people, which is plainly not the case. Christians would also be obliged to eat kosher meat (Acts 15:20) and stone their disobedient sons to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The world has changed practices that were acceptable 2k years ago have become abhorrent.
Johric01 3 years ago
Yay! I love smart people!
CatCommunication 3 years ago
By the last few seconds do you mean the part after the "More Time Spent Talking to the Mac" slide? If so thanks! I wrote that as a revelation years ago and thought I'd say it.
NoWallsMinistry 3 years ago
Yes, that part. It is very true, yet so hard for people to understand and live by it. The world would be such a better place if so.
porolita22 3 years ago
I think that if we can teach children to share and all that, we can teach them to love.
NoWallsMinistry 3 years ago
i liked that part too
Lunarstar 2 years ago
I liked all of your video. It was very interesting and educational, however, the last part, the last few seconds, were the best!
Thank you. Thank you.
porolita22 3 years ago
Pao I wish I had a nickel for every video I watched that you had already commented on! This happens to me quite often actually! :)
CatCommunication 3 years ago
LOL really? haha... it is in a good way at least :-P we have some of the same interests...
porolita22 3 years ago
LOL It just occurred to me that I used an expression which might not make sense if you don't speak English all the time (though with you, its easy to forget that you dont!). Basically having a "nickel for every time something happens" means you'd be very rich because that thing happens so often. :)
CatCommunication 3 years ago
We have a very similar one here. "Si tuviera un peso por cada vez..." so it works anyway. Haha!
porolita22 3 years ago