What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.

[Gary K]

God's rules about sex are not based on disease control. They are a lesson about our relationship to Christ.

The fact that they also NOW prevent the spread of disease is NOT the reason for their existence.

Like I said, there are multiple reasons God gave His laws. His lovingkindness, wisdom, understanding, foresight, etc... says He does nothing for one reason and one reason only, You take a really shallow view of God, His abilities, His wisdom, His lovingkindness, and His care for those who follow Him. He has an infinite mind and yet you say His reasoning and foresight for establishing His laws cannot be for more than one reason. What a limited view of God, and one that denies that He is a complex and multi-faceted person with multi-faceted reasoning. Your point of view doesn't even allow God to have the same type of reasoning ability humans use on a regular basis. Humans do things for more than one reason very often. You deny God can and does do the same, and yet He tells us we were created in His image..... Where did humanity get that ability if not from God? Are we wiser, smarter, and have more foresight than God?

One last question. Where is your scriptural reference to support your assertion that God cannot have more than one reason for what He does? I supported my claim with scripture. Where is yours?

 

[Right Divider]

One last question. Where is your scriptural reference to support your assertion that God cannot have more than one reason for what He does? I supported my claim with scripture. Where is yours?

I made no such claim.

 

[Gary K]

It has to do with filling out forms and the implications of what we say.

Someone who has been in a relationship might say that they are single for some reason. Then what happens if someone who has never been in a relationship says that they are single? Are they (me) more righteous now? Not necessarily. Now what about straight? Do I hate other people? Am I filled with hate? No. But straight might imply to some that I am hate filled. I am not homosexual, but why say that I am straight? I don't see two options, even if straight is not set against homosexuality. Does that clarify it? I didn't really restate it, but that would be or might be too difficult or impossible.

You lose me when you equate righteousness with marriage status. Adam was both single and sinless before God created Eve. God ordained the marriage Adam and Eve. Adam was both married and sinless before and after he married Eve. He was perfect until he chose to disobey God. His marriage status had nothing to do with with the state of his righteousness or sinfulness.

It seems to me you worry too much about what others might say, for there are people in this world who will say anything in an attempt to make you feel guilty about something. You have no control, or even influence over, what other people can and will say about you. Accusation does not equal reality. You just need to consider the source

 

[Gary K]

I made no such claim.

You made exactly that claim by saying God could have only one reason for creating the laws He did concerning sex.

 

[Right Divider]

You made exactly that claim by saying God could have only one reason for creating the laws He did concerning sex.

I absolutely never made that claim. You are lying.

My point was that YOU cannot find any place in scripture that says that God's rules about sex are DUE to disease. If there is, go ahead and show us.

 

[Jacob]

I want to let you know that I am going to do my level best to not cause you frustration. I am sorry as you have said that I have.

I went over all of this is some detail. That's what all that talk about being identified in Christ was all about. That's what all that talk about our righteousness being Christ's righteousness was all about.

Thank you for your detail with the righteousness of Christ. I still think that I should obey God, but I have always believed that my righteousness is in Christ. Any righteousness in obeying God after having been forgiven? God can evaluate that but I think righteousness also has to do with our actions not just what was imputed to us. It has to do with what we are talking about when we are.

But instead of responding to it, you ignore it and move on like I never said a syllable of it. You mouth the words of a Christian but seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what it means to be a Christian. You very simply cannot understand Christianity and make any attempt to follow the law. You are COMMANDED not to do so! How do you propose to obey God by placing yourself under a law that He has expressly forbidden you to follow? I have stated that to follow the law is to resurrect your flesh and take back down the law which Christ nailed to the cross. But instead of responding to that critical point, you just ignore the entire point and move on to things that don't even seem to be related to the topic at all and then ask me questions that could only be answered by my having to repeat everything I had just said about crucifying the flesh and the law having a ministry of death and Christ having taken it out of the way, etc.

I think part of it is that Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 are usually an end that no one would argue against, and I don't argue against them.

Galatians 5:24 YLT - 24 and those who are Christ's, the flesh did crucify with the affections, and the desires;
​

It's not like I'm trying to be frustrated here. Quite the contrary! I'm trying my level best to answer your questions to the best of my ability. This happens to be one of my very favorite topics to discuss but I hate having my time wasted and it's difficult for me to think that anything else is going on when the meat of my posts gets skipped right over like it wasn't there while sentences like "I answered this two sentences later." which don't have anything to do with the real topic being discussed, get quoted individually and responded to.

I don't understand your feeling that your time is wasted, but I appreciate your coming back to these main points of yours to emphasize them.

I'm not so much angry as I am frustrated. At best, I'm spinning my wheels here.

Not to worry.

A lateral jump in thought simply refers to when someone says something disconnected from what is being discussed.

Okay. I am not sure when I did that, but okay.

Don't over think it. It means what it seams to mean. Death is what you get when you sin.

Right.

Which brings up an important point, by the way.

I'm out of time so I'll start down this road by asking you a question that is going to sound sort of cryptic. See if you can discover the answer and I'll elaborate next time I'm on....

What two things in scripture have/had a ministry of death?

The Ten Commandments.

2 Corinthians 3:7 NASB - 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading [as] it was,​

Clete

Jacob

 

[Jacob]

You lose me when you equate righteousness with marriage status. Adam was both single and sinless before God created Eve. God ordained the marriage Adam and Eve. Adam was both married and sinless before and after he married Eve. He was perfect until he chose to disobey God. His marriage status had nothing to do with with the state of his righteousness or sinfulness.

It seems to me you worry too much about what others might say, for there are people in this world who will say anything in an attempt to make you feel guilty about something. You have no control, or even influence over, what other people can and will say about you. Accusation does not equal reality. You just need to consider the source

Thank you for the encouragement. I am not confusing marriage status with righteousness. However, beginning one's life single is default and should not need to be stated. I wonder if people who were in a relationship rejoice to call themselves single afterward. I don't want to be misunderstood, and I internalize what I learn or think, in my mind.

 

[Clete]

Thank you for your detail with the righteousness of Christ. I still think that I should obey God, but I have always believed that my righteousness is in Christ. Any righteousness in obeying God after having been forgiven? God can evaluate that but I think righteousness also has to do with our actions not just what was imputed to us. It has to do with what we are talking about when we are.

And I'm here to tell you that to whatever extent you are trying to be righteous in what you do, you are feeding your flesh and resurrecting the law.

Righteousness for the Christian does NOT come through the law. It does not come by knowing the law, thinking about the law, obey the law or anything else that has anything to do with the law. Christ is THE END OF THE LAW for righteousness - period.

The Christian life is lived by faith and only that.

I'll ask you another question related to the question I ask before about God being righteous. You correctly answered that God was righteous but didn't really have an answer for why. Do you think its because He has a list of rules that He must follow? Do think that God is righteous because He follows the Law?

I'll tell you that the law has exactly nothing to do with why God is righteous. There is one thing, one concept, one idea that is stated in a single word that accounts for Christ's (God's) righteousness. I'll give you a hint: It isn't faith and it isn't hope but it is the only power by which the Christian life can be lived.

I think part of it is that Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 are usually an end that no one would argue against, and I don't argue against them.

Except that you are arguing against it by saying in effect that you are saved by grace through faith but are somehow sanctified by obedience to the law.

There isn't anything that could be further from the truth...

Galatians 3: O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Collosians 2:6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,​

I encourage you to read the entire chapter of Galatians 3.


What two things have/had a ministry of death...

The Ten Commandments.

2 Corinthians 3:7 NASB - 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading [as] it was,​

Well, that one thing, right? The Ten Commandments being simply a synopses of the whole law.

So what else is there in the bible besides the law that has (or had) a ministry of death?

Don't worry, I won't leave you hanging for too long. If I had the time, I'd just show you the biblical parallels between these two things right now but it'll have to wait. In the mean time see if you can figure it out.

Clete

 

[Jacob]

I am just going to answer below.

And I'm here to tell you that to whatever extent you are trying to be righteous in what you do, you are feeding your flesh and resurrecting the law.

Righteousness for the Christian does NOT come through the law. It does not come by knowing the law, thinking about the law, obey the law or anything else that has anything to do with the law. Christ is THE END OF THE LAW for righteousness - period.

The Christian life is lived by faith and only that.

I'll ask you another question related to the question I ask before about God being righteous. You correctly answered that God was righteous but didn't really have an answer for why. Do you think its because He has a list of rules that He must follow? Do think that God is righteous because He follows the Law?

I'll tell you that the law has exactly nothing to do with why God is righteous. There is one thing, one concept, one idea that is stated in a single word that accounts for Christ's (God's) righteousness. I'll give you a hint: It isn't faith and it isn't hope but it is the only power by which the Christian life can be lived.


Except that you are arguing against it by saying in effect that you are saved by grace through faith but are somehow sanctified by obedience to the law.

There isn't anything that could be further from the truth...

Galatians 3: O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Collosians 2:6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,​

I encourage you to read the entire chapter of Galatians 3.


What two things have/had a ministry of death...


Well, that one thing, right? The Ten Commandments being simply a synopses of the whole law.

So what else is there in the bible besides the law that has (or had) a ministry of death?

Don't worry, I won't leave you hanging for too long. If I had the time, I'd just show you the biblical parallels between these two things right now but it'll have to wait. In the mean time see if you can figure it out.

Clete

I don't know what the other one is. The one that I presented was from an internet search at blueletterbible.org. I don't know how to guess at something that I don't know.

As for seeking to be righteous, it is important to be righteous, but it is not in trying to keep the Law.

Let me ask you a question. Do you obey God? Do you obey God's Law, the Law of Moses? Do you obey New Covenant Law, God's law in the New Covenant for the House of Israel and the House of Judah? Do you obey the commands or commandments of Jesus? Basically, what is it that you obey?

 

[Clete]

I am just going to answer below.

Awesome!

I don't know what the other one is. The one that I presented was from an internet search at blueletterbible.org. I don't know how to guess at something that I don't know.

I had actually said that the law had a ministry of death in the same post where I asked the question. You just overlooked it. Still, you did better than most would have done. Most wouldn't have bothered to even try to figure it out.

I should have some extra time this afternoon. I'll post the answer in some detail then.

As for seeking to be righteous, it is important to be righteous, but it is not in trying to keep the Law.

You are one self-contradictory dude. What in the world has this whole discussion been about if not me trying to convince you that you ought not allow yourself to be placed under the law?

Let me ask you a question. Do you obey God? Do you obey God's Law, the Law of Moses? Do you obey New Covenant Law, God's law in the New Covenant for the House of Israel and the House of Judah? Do you obey the commands or commandments of Jesus? Basically, what is it that you obey?

That's more than one question. The fact that you think that "Do you obey God?" and "Do you obey God's Law, the Law of Moses?" are two different ways to ask the same question is frightening. Comments like this and other similar comments is what has made me question whether you are in fact a Christian. No Christian who understands even one chapter of the Pauline epistles could ever make such a gross error.

Of course I obey God! Therefore, I DO NOT obey the law of Moses - any of it. Not the Ten Commandments, not any of it. The Mosaic Law is antithetical to the Christian faith.(Rom. 10:4; Gal. 5:2)

Does that mean I think it's okay to steal things and murder people? Of course not! But it isn't because of the Mosaic Law that those things are wrong.

 

[Clete]

Okay [MENTION=5582]Jacob[/MENTION],

Things are really busy for me at work lately and I've got a little bit of time now but not as much as I would like so I'm going give you the nushell version of this and we can expand on it later if needed.

There are two things in the bible that have a ministry of death. They are The Law and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In fact the one is the legacy of (i.e. the fruit of) the other.

There's so much to be said about this but all I have time for is to post several verse referrences that demonstrate the biblical parallels...

The Tree:

• The Tree is the ministry of death. Gen 2:17
• Do not partake of the Tree. Gen. 2:17
• In the day you partake of the Tree, you will die. Gen. 2:17
• By the Tree is the knowledge of sin. Gen. 3:22
• The Tree brought the offense. Rom. 5:17
• The Tree’s curse died on the cross. Rom 5:18-19
• The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Ezek. 31:15; Rev. 22:14

The Law:

• The law is the ministry of death. 2 Cor. 3:7
• Do not partake of the law. Rom. 7:6; 10:4
• In the day you partake of the law, you will die. Rom. 7:9
• By the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20; 7:7
• The law made the offense abound.Rom. 5:20
• The law was nailed to the cross. Col. 2:13-14, 16
• The Law of the Spirit is in the new heaven, but not the Law of Death. Rom. 8:2; 7:6

So, we've been over and over the passages in Collosians 2 and Galatians 3. (I encourage you to review them.) And based on those passages and others we can know that we as Christians have been returned to a state quite similar to that which Adam and Eve were in before the curse came due to their disobedience. For them it was "Do not partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil!" and for us it is, "Do not partake of the Law!".

That sort of puts a new twist on your question about what it means to obey God, does it not?

Now, like I said, there's a lot more than can be said to flesh this out but this gives you the gist of it and if this doesn't get you to stay away from observing the law, nothing ever will.

Clete

 

[Jacob]

You have presented a great challenge to me. I will respond to your two posts and comment afterward with anything I have studied or thought of in response to your posts.

Awesome!

I had actually said that the law had a ministry of death in the same post where I asked the question. You just overlooked it. Still, you did better than most would have done. Most wouldn't have bothered to even try to figure it out.

I remembered that there was a verse about the Law in this regard or in this respect, and I found one.

I should have some extra time this afternoon. I'll post the answer in some detail then.

You are one self-contradictory dude. What in the world has this whole discussion been about if not me trying to convince you that you ought not allow yourself to be placed under the law?

It is about homosexuality, which many Christians believe is compatible with the Christian life. But the Law and the Bible say otherwise. However, I still don't know what you mean by being placed under the law or allowing yourself to be placed under the law. On your view does that mean that you can't obey God or that you can't obey God's Law? What about God's law (In the New Covenant)? We are not under the Law we are under grace. Either sinners are, or Israel is, under the Law.

Romans 3:7 NASB - 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?​

That's more than one question. The fact that you think that "Do you obey God?" and "Do you obey God's Law, the Law of Moses?" are two different ways to ask the same question is frightening. Comments like this and other similar comments is what has made me question whether you are in fact a Christian. No Christian who understands even one chapter of the Pauline epistles could ever make such a gross error.

I ask do you obey God because that is the main question. This could involve the Law of Moses or Jesus, but if only Jesus it might still involve the Law of Moses. I accept Jesus' instruction and interpret Paul's in light of it. Or I try to or I say I do. Or I just said I do. I am saying that I do not reject Paul. But I don't believe Paul taught anything that Jesus Himself would not teach, so I go to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus is God's Son. Paul is an apostle of Jesus.

Of course I obey God! Therefore, I DO NOT obey the law of Moses - any of it. Not the Ten Commandments, not any of it. The Mosaic Law is antithetical to the Christian faith.(Rom. 10:4; Gal. 5:2)

I disagree with you. However, are you relating Christianity to the New Covenant? It might be nice to know what you are doing, for yourself whether you can share it with me or not.

Does that mean I think it's okay to steal things and murder people? Of course not! But it isn't because of the Mosaic Law that those things are wrong.

There is nothing wrong with the Mosaic Law. It is God's Word. His Law. His Commandments.

Okay [MENTION=5582]Jacob[/MENTION],

Thank you for the mention. Without a quote it helps. I don't know how to mention people myself. Maybe I can do it without a number. [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]

Things are really busy for me at work lately and I've got a little bit of time now but not as much as I would like so I'm going give you the nushell version of this and we can expand on it later if needed.

I worked today too. Thank you for your response and instruction.

There are two things in the bible that have a ministry of death. They are The Law and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In fact the one is the legacy of (i.e. the fruit of) the other.

I have read to the bottom including all the verses, so I must disagree with you. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the Garden of Eden. Some people believe that it can still be eaten of today. That idea is foreign to me.

There's so much to be said about this but all I have time for is to post several verse referrences that demonstrate the biblical parallels...

Okay. Feel free to share more later if you want to. It is not required of me nor might it be possible for you to do so (I don't know if it is). Thank you for your input into my life, even if I can just examine what you are saying.

The Tree:

• The Tree is the ministry of death. Gen 2:17
• Do not partake of the Tree. Gen. 2:17
• In the day you partake of the Tree, you will die. Gen. 2:17
• By the Tree is the knowledge of sin. Gen. 3:22
• The Tree brought the offense. Rom. 5:17
• The Tree’s curse died on the cross. Rom 5:18-19
• The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Ezek. 31:15; Rev. 22:14

I don't know or relate to
The Tree’s curse died on the cross.
and
The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

By your saying,
The Tree is the ministry of death.
are you saying that thinking about good and evil such as with the Law is antithetical to the life and ministry of the Spirit in our lives?

You said,
By the Tree is the knowledge of sin.
but I don't see that in the verse.

You said,
The Tree brought the offense.
but it was the man's offense.

You said,
The Tree’s curse died on the cross.
but a curse is not mentioned in these verses.

You said,
The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
and I am not sure about your references, but I don't know that it is in the new heaven.

The Law:

• The law is the ministry of death. 2 Cor. 3:7
• Do not partake of the law. Rom. 7:6; 10:4
• In the day you partake of the law, you will die. Rom. 7:9
• By the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20; 7:7
• The law made the offense abound.Rom. 5:20
• The law was nailed to the cross. Col. 2:13-14, 16
• The Law of the Spirit is in the new heaven, but not the Law of Death. Rom. 8:2; 7:6

I will respond to your points and verses.

The law is the ministry of death. 2 Cor. 3:7
The Ten Commandments or the law, yes.
Do not partake of the law. Rom. 7:6; 10:4
We have been delivered, not do not partake.
In the day you partake of the law, you will die. Rom. 7:9
Paul is talking about coming to saving knowledge, not after you are saved. As far as I know.
By the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20; 7:7
Good. You got this.
The law made the offense abound.Rom. 5:20
Good. Right on.
The law was nailed to the cross. Col. 2:13-14, 16
the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. Wiped out. Taken out of the way. Nailed to the cross. having forgiven you all trespasses,
I believe that I have clarity on verse 16. Thank you.
The Law of the Spirit is in the new heaven, but not the Law of Death. Rom. 8:2; 7:6
I don't know why you say
is in the new heaven.
So I have found reason to disagree with you, even as I have chosen to listen.

So, we've been over and over the passages in Collosians 2 and Galatians 3. (I encourage you to review them.)

I read Galatians 3 and Colossians 2 before responding to your posts.

And based on those passages and others we can know that we as Christians have been returned to a state quite similar to that which Adam and Eve were in before the curse came due to their disobedience. For them it was "Do not partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil!" and for us it is, "Do not partake of the Law!".

I am not sure how to answer. It makes me think of the following.

Colossians 2:21 NASB - 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"​

Maybe this has to do with accepting the Law after becoming a Christian. Which is different than accepting the covenant before becoming a Christian. It depends on what kinds of things happened in my life first.

That sort of puts a new twist on your question about what it means to obey God, does it not?

Certainly!

Now, like I said, there's a lot more than can be said to flesh this out but this gives you the gist of it and if this doesn't get you to stay away from observing the law, nothing ever will.

I will answer below.

Clete

I have three Scripture passages to share.

Galatians 3:21 NASB - 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.​

This verse is like the other that I have already shared, "which was to result in life" Romans 7:10 NASB. I came across it so I am adding it here. See again Leviticus 18:5 NASB.

Romans 4:16 NASB - 16 For this reason [it is] by faith, in order that [it may be] in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,​

It says,
not only to those who are of the Law,
which is certainly not all of the verse, but it is part of the verse that can't be ignored.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 NASB - 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.​

This passage certainly shows, though maybe not for Christian believers who walk according to the Spirit and do not sin, that if a person gets caught up in homosexuality, then the Law is for them. Would this ever be for the Christian? Maybe no, unless a Christian can sin without becoming a homosexual. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB. I do not believe that a Christian can be a homosexual.

Jacob

 

[Clete]

You have presented a great challenge to me. I will respond to your two posts and comment afterward with anything I have studied or thought of in response to your posts.


I remembered that there was a verse about the Law in this regard or in this respect, and I found one.



It is about homosexuality, which many Christians believe is compatible with the Christian life. But the Law and the Bible say otherwise. However, I still don't know what you mean by being placed under the law or allowing yourself to be placed under the law. On your view does that mean that you can't obey God or that you can't obey God's Law? What about God's law (In the New Covenant)? We are not under the Law we are under grace. Either sinners are, or Israel is, under the Law.

Romans 3:7 NASB - 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?​

I ask do you obey God because that is the main question. This could involve the Law of Moses or Jesus, but if only Jesus it might still involve the Law of Moses. I accept Jesus' instruction and interpret Paul's in light of it. Or I try to or I say I do. Or I just said I do. I am saying that I do not reject Paul. But I don't believe Paul taught anything that Jesus Himself would not teach, so I go to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus is God's Son. Paul is an apostle of Jesus.

I disagree with you. However, are you relating Christianity to the New Covenant? It might be nice to know what you are doing, for yourself whether you can share it with me or not.

There is nothing wrong with the Mosaic Law. It is God's Word. His Law. His Commandments.

Thank you for the mention. Without a quote it helps. I don't know how to mention people myself. Maybe I can do it without a number. [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]

I worked today too. Thank you for your response and instruction.

I have read to the bottom including all the verses, so I must disagree with you. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the Garden of Eden. Some people believe that it can still be eaten of today. That idea is foreign to me.

Okay. Feel free to share more later if you want to. It is not required of me nor might it be possible for you to do so (I don't know if it is). Thank you for your input into my life, even if I can just examine what you are saying.

I don't know or relate to
The Tree’s curse died on the cross.
and
The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

By your saying,
The Tree is the ministry of death.
are you saying that thinking about good and evil such as with the Law is antithetical to the life and ministry of the Spirit in our lives?

You said,
By the Tree is the knowledge of sin.
but I don't see that in the verse.

You said,
The Tree brought the offense.
but it was the man's offense.

You said,
The Tree’s curse died on the cross.
but a curse is not mentioned in these verses.

You said,
The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
and I am not sure about your references, but I don't know that it is in the new heaven.

I will respond to your points and verses.

The law is the ministry of death. 2 Cor. 3:7
The Ten Commandments or the law, yes.
Do not partake of the law. Rom. 7:6; 10:4
We have been delivered, not do not partake.
In the day you partake of the law, you will die. Rom. 7:9
Paul is talking about coming to saving knowledge, not after you are saved. As far as I know.
By the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20; 7:7
Good. You got this.
The law made the offense abound.Rom. 5:20
Good. Right on.
The law was nailed to the cross. Col. 2:13-14, 16
the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. Wiped out. Taken out of the way. Nailed to the cross. having forgiven you all trespasses,
I believe that I have clarity on verse 16. Thank you.
The Law of the Spirit is in the new heaven, but not the Law of Death. Rom. 8:2; 7:6
I don't know why you say
is in the new heaven.
So I have found reason to disagree with you, even as I have chosen to listen.

I read Galatians 3 and Colossians 2 before responding to your posts.
I am not sure how to answer. It makes me think of the following.

Colossians 2:21 NASB - 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"​

Maybe this has to do with accepting the Law after becoming a Christian. Which is different than accepting the covenant before becoming a Christian. It depends on what kinds of things happened in my life first.

Certainly!

I will answer below.
I have three Scripture passages to share.

Galatians 3:21 NASB - 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.​

This verse is like the other that I have already shared, "which was to result in life" Romans 7:10 NASB. I came across it so I am adding it here. See again Leviticus 18:5 NASB.

Romans 4:16 NASB - 16 For this reason [it is] by faith, in order that [it may be] in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,​

It says,
not only to those who are of the Law,
which is certainly not all of the verse, but it is part of the verse that can't be ignored.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 NASB - 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.​

This passage certainly shows, though maybe not for Christian believers who walk according to the Spirit and do not sin, that if a person gets caught up in homosexuality, then the Law is for them. Would this ever be for the Christian? Maybe no, unless a Christian can sin without becoming a homosexual. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB. I do not believe that a Christian can be a homosexual.

Jacob

No way do I have anywhere near the time it would take to respond to this point by point but, fortunately, I'm not sure that doing so is necessary.

There are two primary obstacles in the way of our making progress past this point.


1. You are conflating criminal justice with soteriology. The one has precisely nothing to do with the other. What the government should consider criminal has nothing to do with my relationship with God, how I am saved, or what I should do once I am saved. They are entirely separate issues aside from the fact that the law of the land and I ought to both be just. I am not save because I follow any law. My relationship with God is not based upon, enhanced, improved nor effected in any way by whether I follow a list of rules. My standing before God is not at all based on what I do or don't do but rather it is based entirely and only on that which Christ did for me.

2. You will never remove yourself from under the law unless and until you see and understand that the dispensation of grace began, not with Jesus but with the conversion of Paul in Acts 9. Jesus lived under the dispensation of law. He obeyed the law and taught others to do the same and everyone who was converted under that dispensation remained under that dispensation until their physical death (Roman 11:29). There was, therefore, two separate groups of believers, including "those who are of the law", meaning those who were saved under the previous dispensation.

There is also your propensity toward over analysis that tends toward your losing for forest for the trees (i.e. you need to realize that most of the time a verse means what it seems to mean and that parsing every word leads to more confusion than is necessary) but that problem I think is more or less a result of your lack of dispensational thinking. You are trying to make verses fit together in ways that they were never intended. You are, in effect, reading mail that was written to two different people and trying to understand them as if they were written to one person. That's not ever going to work.

Now, the first of those two primary obstacles can be overcome rather easily I think but the 2nd is much harder. It is a paradigm level issue which you almost certainly will never come to accept. You're likely too full of your own knowledge to ever concede that your entire view of the Scripture is tinted the wrong color. That observation is just an opinion though. I certainly could be wrong and, in fact, I hope that I am.

-----------------------------


One last thing...

You don't need to tell me that you've read my post or that you've reviewed a passage or read a verse. In fact, I sort of recommend that you not do so because it annoyes the crap out of me when things like this happen...


I cite Ezek. 31:15 and Rev. 22:14 to substantiate the fact that The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

You then claim to have read those passages but somehow can post...

"I don't know or relate to
The Tree’s curse died on the cross.
and
The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."

Was that some sort of typo or had you just forgotten that the verses I cited place one tree in Heaven while placing the other in Hell or hadn't you actually read the verses?


In short, I'll believe that you've read my post when and if you respond to the points I've made. There's no need to report that you've read it. Just read it and then respond to the points made. And don't bother telling me that you disagree unless you are both able and willing to make an argument to the contrary. I'm not interested in your opinion. The verses I cited state directly what each point asserted. If you disagree, fine, prove it. Simply telling me that you disagree does precisely nothing to convince me that I'm wrong or even that I might be wrong.

 

[Gary K]

Thank you for the encouragement. I am not confusing marriage status with righteousness. However, beginning one's life single is default and should not need to be stated. I wonder if people who were in a relationship rejoice to call themselves single afterward. I don't want to be misunderstood, and I internalize what I learn or think, in my mind.

I don't know if you forgot what you said or not, but here is your statement from the post I first replied to:

Someone who has been in a relationship might say that they are single for some reason. Then what happens if someone who has never been in a relationship says that they are single? Are they (me) more righteous now? Not necessarily.

You definitely made a connection between marriage status and righteousness. I have no idea if this was done inadvertently or not, a failure to accurately communicate what you were thinking, but the connection is there in your own words. You asked if you, yourself, were more righteous because you stated you were single and then answered by saying, not necessarily. Your words definitely imply a connection between marriage status and righteousness.

 

[Gary K]

I absolutely never made that claim. You are lying.

My point was that YOU cannot find any place in scripture that says that God's rules about sex are DUE to disease. If there is, go ahead and show us.

You're denying the direct implications of your own words.

1. You have given no scripture to validate your assertions. To me that means they are just bald-faced assertions that carry no weight whatsoever. To then argue that I must support my position with a scripture that explicitly says God gave His sexual practice laws specifically to stop std's is hypocritical in the extreme.

2. I gave you scripture that backs up my assertions. What do I need to do? Post it again? Or will you just continue to ignore it?

Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.

Following God's commandments means the Israelites will have none of the diseases the Egyptians had. As the Egyptians, and the nations living in the Promised land, had pagan religious rituals involving sexual practices this is a promise from God that if the Israelites obey Him none of those diseases brought about by promiscous pagan sexual practices will ever affect the Israelites. That text includes diseases arising from sexual immorality for it specifically says no diseases that the Egyptians suffer from will ever infect an Israelite.

If two people obey God's commandments relating to sexual practices before they are married, you know remain virgins until their marriage, and then neither of them commit adultery during their marriage, what are the chances of them contracting an std? Absolutely zero chances of the two of them getting an std. Following God's commands absolutely ensures they will be free of std's. To say that this was unknown to God, nor even a part of His reasoning processes, is to deny that God is a person who reasons on multiple levels at the same time.

Just so you know, even if I didn't have scripture to support my position, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Especially when this entire subject is self-evident from the true knowledge of God.

 

[Jacob]

Something I was thinking about before coming online today to see your post is that there is the Law and the Spirit, and the Spirit is of faith (is the Law of faith?).

Galatians 3:12 NASB - 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."​

Romans 3:31 NASB - 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.​

No way do I have anywhere near the time it would take to respond to this point by point but, fortunately, I'm not sure that doing so is necessary.

I can follow that.

There are two primary obstacles in the way of our making progress past this point.

Listening.

1. You are conflating criminal justice with soteriology. The one has precisely nothing to do with the other. What the government should consider criminal has nothing to do with my relationship with God, how I am saved, or what I should do once I am saved. They are entirely separate issues aside from the fact that the law of the land and I ought to both be just. I am not save because I follow any law. My relationship with God is not based upon, enhanced, improved nor effected in any way by whether I follow a list of rules. My standing before God is not at all based on what I do or don't do but rather it is based entirely and only on that which Christ did for me.

We are talking about a government run by God according to the Law of Moses or New Covenant law. United States Law can be that. Being of Israel I already live that way, accepting anything in line with it.

But I accept that if the Law is distant from you it does not relate to the immediacy of salvation or if you are born again. However, preaching the Law to show someone their need for the Savior likely does involve criminal law or God's criminal law system. Unless it involves neither.

2. You will never remove yourself from under the law unless and until you see and understand that the dispensation of grace began, not with Jesus but with the conversion of Paul in Acts 9. Jesus lived under the dispensation of law. He obeyed the law and taught others to do the same and everyone who was converted under that dispensation remained under that dispensation until their physical death (Roman 11:29). There was, therefore, two separate groups of believers, including "those who are of the law", meaning those who were saved under the previous dispensation.

A person does not remove themself from under the law. If that is what it is then a person must claim that this is what they have done and justify their action. Now, I am not under the Law. I am under grace. But this is because of what God says not because of what I say. Like accepting forgiveness. It is the same. I am forgiven so I am not under the Law. If there is a sense in which I am under the Law if I observe the Law, it is not a Biblical sense. Jesus was born under the Law. Meaning, He was born an Israelite with God's Law, the Law of Moses, to live by and to govern every aspect of His life not directly governed by God should there be anything else. Either sinners or Israel is under the Law. But to me this is an unknown of my Biblical interpretation. Being born under the Law is different from being converted under the Law. I am not sure what to make about your statements about dispensations. It is my belief that God's law does not change. That His instruction, His Torah, has been from the beginning. From the beginning of the Torah, and from before the coming of the Torah. Paul in Acts 9 was not the beginning of grace. However,

Romans 11:6 NASB - 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.​

I think I have the right verse here. The point is was it ever by works? If this means the Law of Moses that is different from man's traditions even about it. In other words, it can seem that something was taken out of the way without it being the Word or Law of God.

There is also your propensity toward over analysis that tends toward your losing for forest for the trees (i.e. you need to realize that most of the time a verse means what it seems to mean and that parsing every word leads to more confusion than is necessary) but that problem I think is more or less a result of your lack of dispensational thinking. You are trying to make verses fit together in ways that they were never intended. You are, in effect, reading mail that was written to two different people and trying to understand them as if they were written to one person. That's not ever going to work.

You are probably right. But I am not a dispensationalist as you know. I believe that God's law has always been the same. So maybe it was different with Abraham.

Now, the first of those two primary obstacles can be overcome rather easily I think but the 2nd is much harder. It is a paradigm level issue which you almost certainly will never come to accept. You're likely too full of your own knowledge to ever concede that your entire view of the Scripture is tinted the wrong color. That observation is just an opinion though. I certainly could be wrong and, in fact, I hope that I am.

Your observation is very astute. Thank you. I seriously consider what you have to say, and I interact with it.

-----------------------------

One last thing...

You don't need to tell me that you've read my post or that you've reviewed a passage or read a verse. In fact, I sort of recommend that you not do so because it annoyes the crap out of me when things like this happen...


I cite Ezek. 31:15 and Rev. 22:14 to substantiate the fact that The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

You then claim to have read those passages but somehow can post...

"I don't know or relate to
The Tree’s curse died on the cross.
and
The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."

Was that some sort of typo or had you just forgotten that the verses I cited place one tree in Heaven while placing the other in Hell or hadn't you actually read the verses?

In short, I'll believe that you've read my post when and if you respond to the points I've made. There's no need to report that you've read it. Just read it and then respond to the points made. And don't bother telling me that you disagree unless you are both able and willing to make an argument to the contrary. I'm not interested in your opinion. The verses I cited state directly what each point asserted. If you disagree, fine, prove it. Simply telling me that you disagree does precisely nothing to convince me that I'm wrong or even that I might be wrong.

Here are your scriptures.

Ezekiel 31:15 NKJV - 15 "Thus says the Lord GOD: 'In the day when it went down to hell, I caused mourning. I covered the deep because of it. I restrained its rivers, and the great waters were held back. I caused Lebanon to mourn for it, and all the trees of the field wilted because of it.

Revelation 22:14 NKJV - 14 Blessed [are] those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.​

They say nothing of what you have said. So I pointed it out to you. I don't need another or a better argument. I don't believe that you have one to begin with. If you do it is unintelligible to me as the scriptures do not say what you are making it out that they say.

 

[Jacob]

I don't know if you forgot what you said or not, but here is your statement from the post I first replied to:

You definitely made a connection between marriage status and righteousness. I have no idea if this was done inadvertently or not, a failure to accurately communicate what you were thinking, but the connection is there in your own words. You asked if you, yourself, were more righteous because you stated you were single and then answered by saying, not necessarily. Your words definitely imply a connection between marriage status and righteousness.

No. We are talking about people who never got married or people who once were married but are not any longer. If I say that I am single having never been in a relationship what does that do for them? It is as if I am judging them and we aren't even talking about a status of married! The person who has never been married but has been in a relationship. I can site my incest but I have never had a girl friend. So I have sinned, and I have been forgiven of it (basically sexual abuse, without sex or fondling, etc...), but that aside I say that I am single and it judges me as among those who have had a relationship. Else I would be considered more righteous for having waited until marriage (I am still unmarried).

 

[Right Divider]

You're denying the direct implications of your own words.

1. You have given no scripture to validate your assertions. To me that means they are just bald-faced assertions that carry no weight whatsoever. To then argue that I must support my position with a scripture that explicitly says God gave His sexual practice laws specifically to stop std's is hypocritical in the extreme.

2. I gave you scripture that backs up my assertions. What do I need to do? Post it again? Or will you just continue to ignore it?

Following God's commandments means the Israelites will have none of the diseases the Egyptians had. As the Egyptians, and the nations living in the Promised land, had pagan religious rituals involving sexual practices this is a promise from God that if the Israelites obey Him none of those diseases brought about by promiscous pagan sexual practices will ever affect the Israelites. That text includes diseases arising from sexual immorality for it specifically says no diseases that the Egyptians suffer from will ever infect an Israelite.

If two people obey God's commandments relating to sexual practices before they are married, you know remain virgins until their marriage, and then neither of them commit adultery during their marriage, what are the chances of them contracting an std? Absolutely zero chances of the two of them getting an std. Following God's commands absolutely ensures they will be free of std's. To say that this was unknown to God, nor even a part of His reasoning processes, is to deny that God is a person who reasons on multiple levels at the same time.

Just so you know, even if I didn't have scripture to support my position, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Especially when this entire subject is self-evident from the true knowledge of God.

Once again you cannot follow simple ideas and I don't care to waste my time with you. But thanks anyway.

 

[Jacob]

I looked up the term sodomy last night and have a confession to make today. When I was a child I abused my little sister. I can say that this was sexually, but there was no sex. Sodomy includes oral sex so though there was no sex there was oral sex, forced. I have a lot to learn. I was just a child, but I live my life wanting to be punished by God and wondering if I will be punished by an earthly source of morality or authority. Now I have a term for what happened. It was with my sister. She is the victim to me the perpetrator. This may make it worse, but in a way for me it makes it better to say something. When I think of God's Law I think of how I am guilty, not how I am innocent. If there is a commandment I can comment on if I am guilty or not. There is a commandment not to sleep with your sister. Well, that did not happen, even with a tree house I think. So I have these Bible verses that I am thinking about.

Romans 1:32
and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Proverbs 6:29
So is the one who goes in to his neighbor's wife;
Whoever touches her will not go unpunished.
​

My sister may marry some day. So I am guilty! It doesn't make any difference that I was just a child because I know what occurred. It was wrong and I am sorry for it. I am sorry to whoever one day may become her husband and make her his wife, if she chooses to get married.

Talking about these things in broad daylight? Sin.

Why on this thread are people trying to get away with or justify sodomy, when that is what it is? Sexual immorality, even if it were with a wife (I have never been married) instead of a sister in my father and mother's home.

I hope this serves as a warning rather than a justification to experiment sexually for anyone. To learn about this is evil, and there is a lot of that in this thread. We face some pretty dark evil stuff in this world. Don't give up on standing for the truth and living to the glory of God rather than for yourself and your own "satisfaction". Sure I would like to be satisfied some day, but maybe not sexually as this can only be self gratification or gratification of a sexual appetite even if I were married or am to become married.

To be sure the experience was not a welcome one and the evil involved in that act with my sister is something I have to stand before God about if not anyone else as well.

My Sister has forgiven me now. I am thankful to her and to my Dad and (my) God for this.

 

[Gary K]

No. We are talking about people who never got married or people who once were married but are not any longer. If I say that I am single having never been in a relationship what does that do for them? It is as if I am judging them and we aren't even talking about a status of married! The person who has never been married but has been in a relationship. I can site my incest but I have never had a girl friend. So I have sinned, and I have been forgiven of it (basically sexual abuse, without sex or fondling, etc...), but that aside I say that I am single and it judges me as among those who have had a relationship. Else I would be considered more righteous for having waited until marriage (I am still unmarried).

Jacob,
What does your marriage status have to do with anyone else? I'm married and you're single. So what? Who cares? I certainly don't. I don't know of anyone else who cares about it either. Why on earth would you think that a statement from you on your marriage status is condemning someone who is married, divorced, widowed, or whatever? There is nothing in the Bible that says this. When Paul speaks to this subject he says he speaks from his own thoughts, not from a revelation from God. Your marriage status is completely irrelevant to anyone else's marriage status.

If you ask me you've gone off the deep end on this. You're making up things to worry about.