Does the New Testament Anywhere Clearly Talk About Homosexuals?

[Nada]

To which I politely note - if you don't read Greek, it's not a good idea to use it in an argument, particularly when you're being this assertive.

To be honest with you I really am not interested in anything you have to say.For one, you come off as a rude dude.Second, you don't know how to communicate with people in a civil manner.You speak very badly.And you are staff? I do not wish to speak to you anymore.Just leave me alone and please do not contact me anymore.Please.......

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

To be honest with you I really am not interested in anything you have to say.For one, you come off as a rude dude.Second, you don't know how to communicate with people in a civil manner.You speak very badly.And you are staff? I do not wish to speak to you anymore.Just leave me alone and please do not contact me anymore.Please.......

In other words... "Stop having an opinion that isn't mine!" If you don't want to discuss the topic, then get out of the thread. It really is that simple.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To be honest with you I really am not interested in anything you have to say.For one, you come off as a rude dude.Second, you don't know how to communicate with people in a civil manner.You speak very badly.And you are staff? I do not wish to speak to you anymore.Just leave me alone and please do not contact me anymore.Please.......

I didn't see anything rude or uncivil in the valuable advice that was provided to you.

Instead of taking offence, why not just think about it for a minute?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I didn't see anything rude or uncivil in the valuable advice that was provided to you.

Instead of taking offence, why not just think about it for a minute?

Thinking is useless. Unless, of course, we come to our friend's conclusion.

Which is uninformed and wrong.

Let's all just hold hands and ignorantly sing songs of Jehovah.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thinking is useless. Unless, of course, we come to our friend's conclusion.

Which is uninformed and wrong.

Let's all just hold hands and ignorantly sing songs of Jehovah.

Oops sorry, I forgot that rule.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

How can you say that if you have never taken a deeper look at it? How can you claim to know what psychology says on the topic of homosexuality and what studies show about homosexuality if you never look for yourself?

Firstly, I was not the one making the original point. Someone else was claiming that modern psychology undermined these older ideas of what is natural and moral. I was simply saying I'd be extremely sceptical it can do that without making controversial philosophical and normative assumptions. Secondly, I know enough about modern psychology to know that it combines genuine scientific and statistical insights with controversial frameworks and assumptions.

Please clarify psychic disturbance.

It could be defined in any number of ways. For example, in Orthodox Christianity, homosexual desires are a clouding of Nous or intellect, a disorder within it. This sort of psychic disturbance would not necessarily fall under contemporary ideas of mental illness, and perhaps, even if it is true, should not be considered a mental illness (with all the connotations that carries with it). My point is not that such a position is correct, but, though, that something being or not being a mental illness in contemporary terminology does not necessarily mean it is not, to quote the other poster, aberrant.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

This entire debate hinges on the authority of Paul, which = none as far as I'm concerned. Christianity today is not Christianity, it is Paulism. Paul speaks of a vision w/ Jesus but there are conflicting accounts, even within different translations of the bible. However, in Acts 9, Jesus only tells Paul to proclaim Jesus's name. Jesus says nothing about making up the rules:

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

...

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

There's nothing to indicate Jesus gave Paul any kind of authority. Even in Romans 1, Paul is giving a narrative of what happened in the past, he is not laying down laws. He uses the phrase "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts... ". 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them is nothing more than Paul's re-iteration of Leviticus, which is not binding on Christians.

Paul was accepted by the apostles as a fellow apostle. This includes by both Peter, the rock upon which the Church would be built, and John, the disciple whom Christ loved.

Anyway, if you read the Gospels carefully you will see Jesus often preaches a doctrine for Saints. For example, he says in Matthew 5:28:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It was Paul, amongst others, who laid done the path for those not yet capable of living up to Christ's highest teachings.

As homosexuality was not accepted in ancient Jewish society, there is no reason to think that Christ accepted it. And the apostles, like Paul, inspired by the spirit, make it explicit.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Paul was accepted by the apostles as a fellow apostle. This includes by both Peter, the rock upon which the Church would be built, and John, the disciple whom Christ loved.

Anyway, if you read the Gospels carefully you will see Jesus often preaches a doctrine for Saints. For example, he says in Matthew 5:28:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It was Paul, amongst others, who laid done the path for those not yet capable of living up to Christ's highest teachings.

As homosexuality was not accepted in ancient Jewish society, there is no reason to think that Christ accepted it. And the apostles, like Paul, inspired by the spirit, make it explicit.

Was Paul also "inspired" in saying that women are required to wear head coverings and never speak in the church? Because I've never seen any of those rules enforced in any church I've ever seen.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Was Paul also "inspired" in saying that women are required to wear head coverings and never speak in the church? Because I've never seen any of those rules enforced in any church I've ever seen.

To be honest, I do not know the interpretation that the Fathers and Divines have put on that passage. I know some traditionalist Catholics believe still argue for such a position. I can certainly accept that it should be the case.

But Paul was inspired, not divine. Most centrally, it is certainly possible for him to give non exhaustive coverage of issues. Paul was most interested supporting the fledgling Christian community. This is one reason why he often had a more mundane perspective than Jesus.

 

[Nada]

Staff breaking the rules.Speaking of me and making fun of by beliefs and God.
1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

 

[Nada]

Thinking is useless. Unless, of course, we come to our friend's conclusion.

Which is uninformed and wrong.

Let's all just hold hands and ignorantly sing songs of Jehovah.

Im not going to report you but just to let you know I don't appreciate you breaking the sights rules.You are trying to be slick and speak of me in a third person to Skeptic Thinker.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

Thats not cool......

As staff you should set an example.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Im not going to report you but just to let you know I don't appreciate you breaking the sights rules.You are trying to be slick and speak of me in a third person to Skeptic Thinker.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

Thats not cool......

As staff you should set an example.

It would be preferable that you report the posts in question rather than continuing to take this thread off topic by making baseless accusations.

We had ended our conversation when I wrote the post that you quoted. I did not refer to you in the slightest, I am shocked that you think so, and I apologize for your misunderstanding, though I cannot be responsible for it.

Anyway, there is a topic and you're ignoring me. Remember?

 

[gzusfrk]

Romans 1:24 Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.


Jude 7 In the same manner, Sod′om and Go·mor′rah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.


1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts (literally 'men who lie with men'), men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

1Timothy 1:8 Now we know that the Law is fine if one applies it properly, 9 recognizing that law is made, not for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, ungodly and sinners, disloyal and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, 10 sexually immoral people, men who practice homosexuality, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and everything else that is in opposition to the wholesome teaching


all scriptures from the New World Translation.

This, and will also add, the way we were made, the woman made from the rib of man. That is why the Word says the two shall become one flesh, the man with his missing rib make one. Two women or two men cannot become one flesh. Jesus said the two must become one flesh.

 

[Ingledsva]

Also Josephus wrote the same thing as Paul did about sex acts between men and He was a Jew.

Jesus did'nt mention a lot of different sins that were were accepted as evil by all Jews.

He did'nt mention cannibalism. According to your nonsense since he didnt say anything about it therefore its okay with God

What a joke

BULL!


Cannibalism is a crime against someone.


Same sex love - is just LOVE.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

This, and will also add, the way we were made, the woman made from the rib of man. That is why the Word says the two shall become one flesh, the man with his missing rib make one. Two women or two men cannot become one flesh. Jesus said the two must become one flesh.

We have already shown - a few pages back - that none of those verses are actually about homosexuals.


Please go back and read it.



*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

BULL!


Cannibalism is a crime against someone.


Same sex love - is just LOVE.



*

Not if you love them. And if you're lucky - they love you, too.

 

[Ingledsva]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you are still incorrect.In Luke 2:38 it never uses the word preach in that passage.The actual word used is spoke.

38 ἐλάλει
spoke

HERE IT IS IN GREEK

καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐπιστᾶσα ἀνθωμολογεῖτο τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ
and She at that hour having come up giving praise to the Lord and spoke concerning

αὐτοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν Ἰερουσαλήμ*
him to all those waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem

IT NEVER SAYS PREACH.IT SAYS SPOKE.

In the holy scriptures when it speaks of Jesus preaching,like in Matthew 4:17, it uses this word.
κηρύσσειν it means to preach or proclaim.

Also in Matthew 4:23 it uses this word for preaching as well. κηρύσσων

These words mean to preach or proclaim: κηρύσσειν κηρύσσων




This word means spoke ἐλάλει,like in the case of Anna in Luke 2:38.

If you see the word preach in an english translation of Luke 2:38 ,it is a mistranslation.

How interesting that you used a different verse then the one I posted!


Mar 2:2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached (ελαλε&#953the word unto them.


Both words are exactly the same. Jesus preached - Anna preached.


*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We have already shown - a few pages back - that none of those verses are actually about homosexuals.

Yes, but did you do it with one or both hands tied behind your back?

 

[Ingledsva]

I see how you stated Laleo means speak.There are also this.
Luke 2:38 V-IIA-3S
GRK: θεῷ καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ
NAS: to God, and continued to speak of Him to all
KJV: unto the Lord, and spake of him
INT: Lord and spoke concerning him


In the Strong's concordance it says this.

Strong's Concordance

laleó: to talk
Original Word: λαλέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: laleó
Phonetic Spelling: (lal-eh'-o)
Short Definition: I speak, say
Definition: (I talk, chatter in classical Greek, but in NT a more dignified word) I speak, say.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from lalos (talkative)
Definition
to talk
NASB Translation
made (1), proclaiming (1), said (6), say (5), saying (7), says (2), speak (95), speak forth (1), speaking (54), speaks (25), spoke (44), spoken (38), stating (1), talked (1), talking (5), tell (1), telling (1), things spoken (2), told (7), uttered (1), whispered* (1).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2980: λαλέω

λαλέω, λαλῶ; imperfect 3 person singular ἐλάλει, plural ἐλάλουν; future λαλήσω; 1 aorist ἐλάλησα; perfect λελάληκα; passive, present λαλοῦμαι; perfect λελάλημαι; 1 aorist ἐλαλήθην; 1 future λαληθήσομαι:

It points out 20 occurrences of this word ἐλάλει.One of them is in Luke 2:38

ἐλάλει — 20 Occ.

Luke 2:38 V-IIA-3S
GRK: θεῷ καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ
NAS: to God, and continued to speak of Him to all
KJV: unto the Lord, and spake of him
INT: Lord and spoke concerning him

It never meant that she preached in the congregation.She spoke to them about Jesus.

imperfect 3 person singular ἐλάλει, from the word Laleo which means to talk.

2980 [e] elalei ἐλάλει spoke V-IIA-3S

καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐπιστᾶσα ἀνθωμολογεῖτο τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν Ἰερουσαλήμ.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 21 versions from different bibles that use the word spoke and never preached.

Luke 2:38 And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

When it mentions Jesus preaching, it says just that,preaching.Or proclaiming.It uses these specific words.

Matthew 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near."

Matthew 4:23 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

This word ἐλάλει, speak, is never used in Matthew 4:17 or 4:23.The words used there are κηρύσσειν and κηρύσσων which mean preached and proclaimed

GOOD GRIEF!


You have been shown by several of us, that it is also preached.


I showed you a Jesus verse using the same word - as PREACHED.


And you still give us crap.



*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

GOOD GRIEF!


You have been shown by several of us, that it is also preached.


I showed you a Jesus verse using the same word - as PREACHED.


And you still give us crap.



*

Given that our friend cannot read the Greek that he posted, I suspect that he's copying it from some other source -- and therefore unprepared and incapable of responding to criticism.

It's not crap, though - it's just a good source (Thayer, for example) used without competence.