homosexuality

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by kenod

So Jesus' instructions about sexual morality are something the Gospel writers just made up?

If you are referring to Matthew 5:26-27, what Jesus was doing was bring the "spirit" back into the Law, for just a few verses back He was preaching to the same multitude that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, for their legalism nullified the Law. Jesus was merely re-establishing the Law. Jesus taught nothing new here.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

nor did He make a huge deal of it.

I think you're onto something here, Q ...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

I think you're onto something here, Q ...

...but (there is always a butt somewhere), His eyes spoke volumes. And what was not communicated out loud, was presented through the fact that God knows each person, and each person recognises God, when He is focussed on the one...

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Dondi

If you are referring to Matthew 5:26-27, what Jesus was doing was bring the "spirit" back into the Law, for just a few verses back He was preaching to the same multitude that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, for their legalism nullified the Law. Jesus was merely re-establishing the Law. Jesus taught nothing new here.

I agree. Jesus confirmed the OT laws concerning sexual morality, although He made them more than just a matter of the body, but also of the heart and mind: lust is the same as the act of adultery.

Jesus confirmed the prohibition against sexual immorality in Matthew 15:16-20 and Mark 7:20-23

Mark 7 (NIV)
"What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean. "

The audience He was speaking to would have understood that homosexual acts were included as "sexual immorality". That is how the disciples and Paul interpreted His words.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by taijasi

To which instructions, exactly, are you referring?
andrew

I have tried to answer your question in the previous post (#109)

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by kenod

I agree. Jesus confirmed the OT laws concerning sexual morality, although He made them more than just a matter of the body, but also of the heart and mind: lust is the same as the act of adultery.

Jesus confirmed the prohibition against sexual immorality in Matthew 15:16-20 and Mark 7:20-23

Mark 7 (NIV)
"What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean. "

The audience He was speaking to would have understood that homosexual acts were included as "sexual immorality". That is how the disciples and Paul interpreted His words.

Hmmm, you just caused me to realise something. Perhaps some of the audience did not understand, which might be why Jesus had to appeal first to the Jews, then the gentiles.

One group had the 613 Mizhvat (including the Ten commandments), that they followed. The other group would not have those laws, but only possibly the seven Noahidic laws. So understanding what sexual immorality was to the Jews, may not have been the same to the gentiles (it would not have been the same for the Romans and Greeks for example).

So the message that Jesus brought initially was for his people who already passed Laws 101, and were capable of going to the next level. With the Gentiles, Jesus would have to start from scratch (a task that would be carried out by His disciples).

If you notice, non Jew interaction Jesus had with individuals of "questionable" sexual morals, was never a condemning interaction. I can think of four right off the bat.

He was astounded with the faith of a Roman Centurian (a gentile), who was concerned with the well being of his favorite servant. Why the servant was favored is never developed. (because it wasn't part of the lesson we are to understand from this story, about faith). (Faith)

Next He was impressed with the open willingness of the woman at the well, to embrace the truth of God, and the excitedness she displayed at learning more (she wanted to know the God she was ignorantly praying to all her life. She was Samaritan, and though following the OT, did not understand what it meant, only that it was given by God to a people, and Samaritans too would follow that God). Through it all, Jesus never condemned her for living the way she had, that wasn't the focus of importance. Her openess to the Word of God, and the good news was. Her eyes and ears and heart were open, without reservation. (Hope)

Then there was the woman about to be stoned for soliciting. The moral here was that no one is perfect, so judge not. However I see something more in this story. The woman the "self righteous" men of the town were about to stone to death, was most assuredly put in the dire position of the prostitute by some of these very same men. I think Jesus was daring them to stone one for what they themselves were guilty of. "Condemn her, and you condemn yourself". (Mercy)

Finally the woman begging for her daughter's life. Jesus tells her flat out He isn't here for her kind (gentiles), but for the Jews. She knows her station in life, but shrewdly points out that even dogs get the scraps and left overs from the table, and are greatful for even just that. (In otherwords, she says "I'm not proud sir, I'll take what I can get and be glad for it"). She also displays a willingness to sacrifice (herself for her daughter's life). She has more than faith at this point. She knows to whom she is speaking with, the author of life. She has not lived well, and wishes her daughter to have a chance to get it right. She places the value of another, over her own worth.
(Love)

Four people of questionable moral character. Three of which brought it upon themselves, and the fourth who most likely had it forced upon her by others.

Three who had a strength and determination to reach out to God, despite their own fallibleness, and a fourth who had no strength left accepted her fate and was at the mercy of her peers.

Faith, Hope, Love and Mercy, where justice was deserved.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[kenod]

You make some very good points, Q ... would you like to come and preach for us one Sunday ... a Catholic preaching in a Pentecostal church ... now I'd like to see that!

Two of the women were obviously living immoral lives and Jesus corrected both of them. I don't think there is any reason to consider the other two were of questionable moral character.

The story about the centurion is sometimes used by gay theologians as an example of a homosexual love relationship, which I reject totally. When the story is told by Luke (7:1-10), there are five references to the servant. Four times the word is "doulos" meaning slave, but when the centurion himself speaks of his servant the word "pais" is used, which can mean servant but is also translated child or son (Luke 2:43; Luke 9:42).

This centurion was held in high esteem by the Jewish elders who approached Jesus on his behalf. In fact the centurion had built the synagogue in Capernaum ( the foundations of which are still there today).

So it seems very unlikely to me that there was anything about the relationship between the centurion and the servant other than a father-son love. To read any more into it is not only unsubstantiated by the text, but contrary to the indications we do have of this man's character. It seems there was more than one devout centurion - Cornelius was another.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by kenod

You make some very good points, Q ... would you like to come and preach for us one Sunday ... a Catholic preaching in a Pentecostal church ... now I'd like to see that!

Two of the women were obviously living immoral lives and Jesus corrected both of them. I don't think there is any reason to consider the other two were of questionable moral character.

The story about the centurion is sometimes used by gay theologians as an example of a homosexual love relationship, which I reject totally. When the story is told by Luke (7:1-10), there are five references to the servant. Four times the word is "doulos" meaning slave, but when the centurion himself speaks of his servant the word "pais" is used, which can mean servant but is also translated child or son (Luke 2:43; Luke 9:42).

This centurion was held in high esteem by the Jewish elders who approached Jesus on his behalf. In fact the centurion had built the synagogue in Capernaum ( the foundations of which are still there today).

So it seems very unlikely to me that there was anything about the relationship between the centurion and the servant other than a father-son love. To read any more into it is not only unsubstantiated by the text, but contrary to the indications we do have of this man's character. It seems there was more than one devout centurion - Cornelius was another.

Ah, but I don't read judgment into the stories of any of the four. Where you imply the centurian as being above reproach, you forget that he himself states he is not worthy (he knew himself, so Jesus had no need to drive the point home).

The woman at the well, had no such convictions. She stated the truth. Jesus simply embelished upon that truth to show her that He knew her well. She wasn't worried about a "sin", she didn't know she comitted (hence she comitted none), she wanted to know what she was missing, and Jesus obliged her wish. Did she hide what he told her? Not at all. She ran and told everyone "Come see and hear the man who told me everything about my life!..." She was excited, because there was no judgment in Jesus words to her, there was simply the truth, and hope.

As for the woman to be stoned...well, prostitutes do not usually become prostitutes because they like it. There has to be a market for it, and people who usually get into that "profession" are in dire straites to begin with (usually caused by other people). A dollar to a doghnut says that she probably approached one of her usual "Johns" and the wife appeared at the same time, so in order to take the heat from himself, he accused her of being a wretched harlot, and got a riot going...(which is why Jesus dared the crowd with his cryptic challenge...)

The woman begging for her daughter's life...perhaps the only one with no vice, however even she implied the understanding that she was not worthy, however she was determined for another that she hoped would be considered worthy (who hadn't the chance to grow up yet, an innocent). And she would trade places with the one...

As far as talking in your church... I'd love to come back to Australlia one day, and (I did grow up for a time in a Charismatic Catholic Church).

v/r

Q

Edit: Ironic that you bring up Cornelius. I was married, and my first born was baptised in The Military Chapel of St. Cornelius the Centurian, on Govenors Island, in New York...

[kenod]

I'm more inclined to see the centurion's "I am not worthy" as an expression of humility, since others testified that he was worthy.

Are any of us worthy of God's grace?

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by kenod

I'm more inclined to see the centurion's "I am not worthy" as an expression of humility, since others testified that he was worthy.

Are any of us worthy of God's grace?

no we are not worthy, but gods love is that great, and he died for all. however, one has to accept that they are sinners and christ died for you.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by kenod

I'm more inclined to see the centurion's "I am not worthy" as an expression of humility, since others testified that he was worthy.

Are any of us worthy of God's grace?

I know what I have done in life...and I'm not proud of some of it. I'm also grateful that God "covered" my indiscretions. That isn't humility. That is a confession of truth, of faith, of gratefullness and of awe.

The Centurian (by his very title), didn't get to be a Centurian by being a nice guy in the Roman Army... He wasn't being humble. He stated a fact. He expressed an expectaton based on a faith that was unshakeable. He understood orders. God is supreme and His orders are to be carried out, that is it.

The Centurian understood that kind of authority, and recognised it when he saw it.

You really should study up on what it took to be a Roman Centurian...that in itself would make your jaw drop, when taken with what this "Centurian" did before Jesus. He risked everything, and did not care, but for his one servant.

In short, he bypassed the entire "chain of command", and went to the top.

v/r

Q

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I know what I have done in life...and I'm not proud of some of it. I'm also grateful that God "covered" my indiscretions. That isn't humility. That is a confession of truth, of faith, of gratefullness and of awe.

The Centurian (by his very title), didn't get to be a Centurian by being a nice guy in the Roman Army... He wasn't being humble. He stated a fact. He expressed an expectaton based on a faith that was unshakeable. He understood orders. God is supreme and His orders are to be carried out, that is it.

The Centurian understood that kind of authority, and recognised it when he saw it.

You really should study up on what it took to be a Roman Centurian...that in itself would make your jaw drop, when taken with what this "Centurian" did before Jesus. He risked everything, and did not care, but for his one servant.

In short, he bypassed the entire "chain of command", and went to the top.

v/r

Q

And yet others described him as worthy - and Cornelius was called devout - I wonder if those who know me would use such words?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by kenod

And yet others described him as worthy - and Cornelius was called devout - I wonder if those who know me would use such words?

You answer your own question, and reveal your inner self in the process. Who are we to judge a man who judges himself the harshest of all?

[Blue Jay]

Originally Posted by kenod

And yet others described him as worthy - and Cornelius was called devout - I wonder if those who know me would use such words?

Is this a veiled admonition telling the rest of us we are not worthy of that description? I've seen certain types of Christians use that tactic.

BJ

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Blue Jay

Is this a veiled admonition telling the rest of us we are not worthy of that description?

no ... and welcome to the Christianity forum ... there are all kinds of Christians here ... but I'm the only one that's right ... OK