LOL.... Yeah, right. Since you have no scripture to support your assertions your only choice is to run and hide while claiming I don't understand.... Just in case you don't know, this is a common tactic used by a lot of people when they lose an argument and will not admit they are wrong.
What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
LOL.... Yeah, right. Since you have no scripture to support your assertions your only choice is to run and hide while claiming I don't understand.... Just in case you don't know, this is a common tactic used by a lot of people when they lose an argument and will not admit they are wrong.
Again, it doesn't have to do with marriage status. It has to do with obeying God. If God wants me to be single, so be it. But that is not the point of what I have been saying.
I am glad that you are married. In this you are fulfilling God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. It may not apply to all individuals, but I believe that you are fulfilling it, unless you are unable to have children.
My being single like Jesus and Paul is not a marriage status thing. It is obedience. When it becomes a marriage status thing is when people ask if you are single or when people ask if you are single or married (or rather, when people ask me this). Because now I wasn't talking about marriage status but now someone else was, in reference to me.
Not having a relationship before marriage is a matter of righteousness. I do not believe that I am wrong in this, even saying that those who are unmarried and have consensual sex having never been engaged or not being engaged means that they must get married (he must talk to her father about this if her father allows this).
Being of Israel?
And you claim to have not placed yourself under the law.
You're blind.
So how can you claim not to be conflating the two and utter the highlighted sentence?
The third sentence doesn't make a lick of sense, by the way.
The law is a tutor to bring us to Christ, yes, but WE ARE NOT SAVED BY FOLLOWING THE LAW!
Under the law you had to do certain things to enter into and maintain a relationship with God. Things that were not optional but REQUIRED. If you refused to do them, you would be cut off, not just from Israel but from God. That is flatly no longer the case. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Your relationship with God has NOTHING to do with what you do or don't do. It is based entirely on your faith in the finished work of Christ at Calvary and only that - period.
Further, things are not immoral BECAUSE they are in the law but rather it's the other way around! It was wrong to murder long before the Law said "Thou shalt not murder." A very long time before!
This discussion is nearing an end. I'm repeating myself and you're getting further away.
Paul sure wasted a lot of time writing Galatians then (and most of the rest of his epistles for that matter).
You sound drunk. This meandering double talk is unintelligible gibberish. The first sentence makes no sense at all then you went along fine for a few sentences and then you added that last sentence and directly contradicted the previous six.
There is only one reason a person would observe the law (i.e. perform the religious rituals of the Mosaic Law) and that's if they have placed themselves under the law. That's what it means to place yourself under the law in the first place! The law is of the flesh. Why, if you began by faith, would you seek to be perfected by your flesh? - Sound familiar?
Jesus was born in Israel which did have the Mosaic law somewhat in effect in their government but not entirely. It was Roman law that governed Israel during Jesus' life time, not Moses. The sense in which Jesus was born under the law was religiously - dispensationally. Jesus, for righteousness sake, HAD to observe the religious rites and practices of the Jewish faith (i.e. the Mosaic Law) Jesus did not eat pork, He was circumcised and did get baptized, observed all the sabbaths, etc, etc, etc. If you did that today, you'd be in violation of God's command not to place yourself under the law and would be expected to repent (i.e. remove yourself from under the law).
Nope. The Law was nailed to that cross at Calvary. You can try to resurrect it all you want but I strongly advise against it.
Your blind because of your paradigm. It cannot be known with "your biblical interpretation" because your interpretation is flatly wrong. You are mixing mail written to two groups of people and forcing them to be speaking to one group. The result is permanent confusion.
The fact is that you are a dispensationalist. Everyone one is. Some simply don't want to admit it and or don't apply the principles consistently.
I couldn't care less about your belief.
The bible states otherwise and you couldn't substantiate the claim that it doesn't change anyway - not if your life depended on it.
Here, I'll smash the concept to dust with a single question...
Was Cane executed for the crime of murder or did God Himself directly forbid it?
The Torah did not exist before Moses. There was no Torah while Israel was in Egypt. Noah did not have the Torah and neither did Abraham, Isaac or Jacob nor did anyone else prior to about 1446bc when the Ten Commandment were first uttered by God Himself at Mt. Sinai.
This too is false. There was no requirement for anyone to abstain from unclean foods before the Torah. There was no tithing requirement before the Torah. There was no arc of the covenant, no mercy seat, no priest, nor any of a hundred other things before the Torah.
I did not say that Paul was the beginning of grace, I said that the dispensation of grace began with Paul. (Actually with the conversion of Saul on the Damascus Road).
Abraham was the father of BOTH groups, Jacob.
You forget the book of James where James, the brother of Jesus, makes the exact opposite point using the very same person and by quoting the exact same old testament passage!
James 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Go ahead and try to reconcile that passage with being saved by faith apart from works from within a non-dispensational paradigm! (You will fail.)
How can it have always been the same AND have been different with Abraham?
How can you contradict yourself inside of two sentences like that and not notice it?
They completely say what I said! What are you even talking about?
What do you think Ezekiel 31 is referring to when it says "In the day when it went down to hell"? What do you think the "it" is referring too? Did you bother to check what the antecedent to that "it" was before you posted this? Clearly not! You might want to read the whole chapter of Ezekiel 31. It's all about what happened to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
And Revelation 22 is talking about people IN THE NEW HEAVEN having "the right to the tree of life". It's sort of hard to exercise such a right if the Tree of Life isn't present, don't you think?
Further, we are told elsewhere in Revelation that there is a different fruit that comes ripe each month on the Tree of Life IN HEAVEN. To deny that the Tree of Life is present in Heaven is to simply display ignorance of the biblical material.
Clete
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
God did not CREATE His rules about sex to avoid disease. It's about the relationship that we are to have with Christ. Marriage is a PICTURE of our intended relationship with Christ. THAT is why sex outside of marriage is wrong.
There is plenty of scripture to support this. If I get the time I will point you to a few, but you should already know what they are.
I don't disagree with this entirely but it seems that the avoidence of disease is likely to be at least part of the reason why God would have laws against sexual immorality.
Things that are morally wrong are so because they lead to death and there are plenty of people who have died because of sexual immorality. Not always because of disease but that's certainly a significant percentage of it. (Romans 1:26-27)
And for the record, I haven't been following your discussion on this so if my comments are out of joint with the discussion just ignore me here.
Right Divider
Body part
It's certainly a benefit, but not His reason for the creation of the exclusive sexual union in a marriage between one man and one woman.
Not before the fall when God first defined marriage.
Always appreciate your input.
I have never said God had only one reason for creating the laws concerning sexual conduct. You're the one making that statement. And I'll show you once again my scriptural evidence, which you have ignored twice already, that at least part of the reason God gave His laws was for the prevention of disease. He said, paraphrasing Him, obey me and you won't suffer from the diseases the Egyptians had/have.... But, you'll just ignore scripture once again....
And I'm supposed to go find scripture to support your bald-faced assertions? LOL. You definitely have nerve. You've had a couple of days already to think of your scriptures and you still can't do a software search and find your scripture and copy and paste it into a post..... Like I said, your assertions are worthless without scriptural support. I don't accept assertions without scriptural evidence.
I very much doubt you'll never find any scripture that says God gave His laws concerning sexual conduct for one reason and one reason only. No scripture like that exists to my knowledge and I'm familiar with both Old and New Testaments. I study them both and have done so for decades.
Huh? Jacob, you once again lost me. Did God make Eve so Adam could have a wife? Yes or no? Did God say it is not good for a man to be alone? Yes or no?
Who said remaining single is God's command? Where is that command? God told Adam and Eve to go forth and populate the earth. God also told Noah and his family to be "fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth". Genesis 9:1 As God has made it very clear fornication and adultery are both very wrong, so God could have only given the survivors of the flood that command if marriage between a man and a woman was right in His eyes. Could Noah's sons and daughter-in-laws have obeyed God and NOT gone forth and had children?
You're off on a tangent that is no where close to being scriptural.
Right Divider
Body part
I didn't say that you did.
I'm saying that disease avoidance is a side-effect of following God's rules about sex and NOT one of the reason for the creation of them.
Your scripture simply shows the beneficial side-effects.
The intimate sexual relationship in a marriage is shown throughout scripture.
Good for you.
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]
I am doing a combination of typing from the computer and posting with my phone because the computer will not allow me to login.
As a child I may have accepted the covenant before understanding the new covenant for the house of Israel and the house of Judah. I do not know to be certain. I may have first accepted Jesus into my heart. Then would I need to new covenant without the old covenant? I later learned that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. When I say that I am of Israel I am telling you that I observe the Torah including wearing tzitzit and eating kosher, etc…. If these things are not a part of the new covenant I don’t know what to say.
I mentioned both because you have mentioned both but I recently saw you mention the one without God by itself. If we accept God’s Law would we also accept man’s law?
Well I am a transgressor, but I see doing the right thing as what I should be doing. If I am not already cut off I don’t want to be cut off. I don’t know if there are second chances or becoming a part of Israel again.
It was wrong because God said that it is wrong.
I do not know what you mean by saying that I am getting further away. I am still typing from a computer or my phone.
It has to do with your words. It is not something that can be done.
There is a good sense of being under the Law and a bad sense. So it matters what sense is being talked about or discussed.
Placing oneself under the law? And how would a person ever do that? I suppose if someone says that they are under the law you would ask how they got there. As for being perfected by the flesh, it is impossible.
Incorrect. Jesus was born under the Law of Israel not Rome.
Incorrect. I am talking about interpreting somewhere in the Bible other than Colossians. In other words, we must accept that either sinners are under the Law or Israel is under the Law. We are all under sin. Then are we all under the Law? For by it all are held accountable to God.
The Scriptures, including letters that you are thinking of, can apply to any believer.
Some people believe in two dispensations or covenants, rather than seven. A Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace. I simply believe that the Law has been from the beginning and that it has not been abolished. However, the enmity, that is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, has been abolished, whatever it, or whatever that, is.
The way in which I cannot substantiate it is that Adam and Eve’s children married each other which in the Law of Moses it is incest.
Cain was allowed to live is what you said.
The word Torah means Instruction, Direction, Teaching, Law. It can mean any of these. It most certainly was there before the coming of the Written Torah with the Law of Moses, etc…. Did Abraham know God’s Law? Adam and Eve? Noah?
Animals were known to be clean or unclean before the coming of the Torah, such as with Noah.
Okay. I don’t know what we are wrangling over.
Correct!
I am not even attempting to do whatever it is that you are asking me to do.
Because did Abraham know God’s Law?
I have now read these two chapters. I still don’t see it. As for the new heavens, it is a new heaven and a new earth in the chapter prior.
Shalom!
Jacob
I am doing a combination of typing from the computer and posting with my phone because the computer will not allow me to login.
As a child I may have accepted the covenant before understanding the new covenant for the house of Israel and the house of Judah. I do not know to be certain. I may have first accepted Jesus into my heart. Then would I need to new covenant without the old covenant? I later learned that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. When I say that I am of Israel I am telling you that I observe the Torah including wearing tzitzit and eating kosher, etc…. If these things are not a part of the new covenant I don’t know what to say.
I mentioned both because you have mentioned both but I recently saw you mention the one without God by itself. If we accept God’s Law would we also accept man’s law?
Well I am a transgressor, but I see doing the right thing as what I should be doing. If I am not already cut off I don’t want to be cut off. I don’t know if there are second chances or becoming a part of Israel again.
Deuteronomy 10:19 NASB - 19 "So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 22:20 Jewish Torah is
Exodus 22:21 NASB - 21 "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 22:20 Jewish Torah is
Exodus 22:21 NASB - 21 "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
It was wrong because God said that it is wrong.
I do not know what you mean by saying that I am getting further away. I am still typing from a computer or my phone.
It has to do with your words. It is not something that can be done.
There is a good sense of being under the Law and a bad sense. So it matters what sense is being talked about or discussed.
Placing oneself under the law? And how would a person ever do that? I suppose if someone says that they are under the law you would ask how they got there. As for being perfected by the flesh, it is impossible.
Incorrect. Jesus was born under the Law of Israel not Rome.
Incorrect. I am talking about interpreting somewhere in the Bible other than Colossians. In other words, we must accept that either sinners are under the Law or Israel is under the Law. We are all under sin. Then are we all under the Law? For by it all are held accountable to God.
The Scriptures, including letters that you are thinking of, can apply to any believer.
Some people believe in two dispensations or covenants, rather than seven. A Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace. I simply believe that the Law has been from the beginning and that it has not been abolished. However, the enmity, that is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, has been abolished, whatever it, or whatever that, is.
The way in which I cannot substantiate it is that Adam and Eve’s children married each other which in the Law of Moses it is incest.
Cain was allowed to live is what you said.
The word Torah means Instruction, Direction, Teaching, Law. It can mean any of these. It most certainly was there before the coming of the Written Torah with the Law of Moses, etc…. Did Abraham know God’s Law? Adam and Eve? Noah?
Animals were known to be clean or unclean before the coming of the Torah, such as with Noah.
Okay. I don’t know what we are wrangling over.
Correct!
I am not even attempting to do whatever it is that you are asking me to do.
Because did Abraham know God’s Law?
I have now read these two chapters. I still don’t see it. As for the new heavens, it is a new heaven and a new earth in the chapter prior.
Shalom!
Jacob
Have you read 1 Corinthians 7? That should help. Remember, some people forbid marriage and I do not.
No one cares.
What do you mean, "IF"? Paul directly states that Christ is the end of the law and he wrote the book of Galatians, including chapter three of that book, not to mention the book of Romans!
And, you could say this...
"I'm sorry Lord for having not understood your word and that my lack of understanding has caused me to trust in my flesh rather than in your righteousness and in your finished work which you did for me at Calvary. Help me to crucify my flesh and to beleive what your word says concerning the law and how it applies only to my flesh which has been crucified by the Law in You and that therefore I no longer must follow a list of rules or worry about what foods I eat because in You, I am clean, pure and perfect and food cannot make me unclean nor can the fringes of my clothing make me faithful. Help me Lord to learn the lesson that You taught the whole world through Israel's lack of faith and failure, that the Law does not produce faith but rather it puffs up my flesh and causes me to stumble, that with the Law there is only death and condemnation but with You and only You, there is faith and life eternal."
It's like talking to a brick wall.
None of this is responsive to what I said. It neither acknowledges the veracity of what I said nor refutes a syllable of it. You just state this as if I hadn't said a word. What do you want me to do, just repeat myself endlessly while you find more and more mostly unrelated things to say in response?
This truly makes me angry, Jacob. Think that statement through for just half a second and you ought to be able to see that it is snuggled right up against blasphemy.
Murder is not wrong because God said so! God said it was wrong BECAUSE IT IS WRONG! It was wrong before God ssid it.
If murder was wrong BECAUSE God said so then God could say the opposite and suddenly murder would be right. I FEEL FILTHY FOR EVEN HAVING HAD TO TYPE SUCH A SENTENCE!!!
Something is wrong because it leads to death, not because of some arbitrary declaration that God made.
Well think it through, Jacob. What in the world could I mean?
The book of Galatians directly contradicts you. Which was the point I made in my previous post to which you've responded by simply restating the same mindless, baseless, indefensible assertion.
IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS THIS COMMENT HELPFUL IN ANY WAY?
Why you would say this and then not explain what you mean? In what sense is being under the law good and in what sense is it bad?
Depending on just what you mean, we might actually agree here. I doubt it, but it is possible. But the point is that I cannot tell because you would rather waste my time typing one sentence where five or six is called for.
If you don't have the time or simply don't want to spend the time it takes to write something worthwhile, do me a favor and go find a hobby that you are passionate about enough to spend the time to do right.
I directly answered this question. Did you ignore it or are you stupid or are you intentionally wasting my time trying to just make me repeat things over and over and over and over again?
You're either a liar or you are stupid.
------
Skipped a lot of wasted time...
......
Okay, that's it! I'm not going any further. I'm done having my time wasted by someone who is either stupid or intentionally and aggressively ignorant.
Believe whatever you want. I haven't the faintest idea why you even bother reading the bible. It seems to have no effect on what you choose to say, believe or practice.
:wave2:
Jacob,
If you're going to point me to scripture to try to present evidence for your position you really ought to understand what you're pointing towards.
You are telling me I am to accept Paul's personal opinions as the commandments of God when Paul says his statements are not commandments from God. Your reading comprehension seems to be really lacking as you're pointing me to a passage of scripture that Paul says a lot of is his opinion.
Now what did God say about marriage:
God said man needed a woman even before sin entered the earth so how much more, in the isolation created by sin, does man need a woman's companionship? That is pretty much incalculable for our need for a companion for life is far greater now than before sin.
What else does the Bible say about marriage being a good thing?
What else does the Bible say about marriage? It compares Christ's second coming to marriage.
That doesn't even come close to implying there is anything less than wonderful about marriage. In fact it implies exactly the opposite for it compares marriage to Jesus revealing Himself, personally and physically, to the redeemed from earth, and taking them home to heaven.
You say you don't care by saying this. I do care.
I mean that if you have a way of looking at it that you would like to explain you are free to do so. Otherwise I stay with what I know. God has His law for us in the new covenant for the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
I don't believe that observing God's commandments is a matter of the flesh. In other words, I don't work in my flesh to keep commandments. I either obey or I don't. If I choose to do anything I choose to obey. Otherwise I just do the commandments by not not doing them.
My apologies.
I am sorry. I am doing the best I can to just respond naturally. I don't work up responses trying to get out of something. I am genuinely concerned for your welfare. If you feel that you can't learn from me, okay.
Incorrect. It is also wrong because it is wrong. But human reasoning won't help you and God's Word will. I refuse to give up God's Word for man's reasoning as is so often the case with people wanting to prove something without God's Word.
I have no idea. It is up to you to tell me. How would I know what you are thinking anyway? I don't know why you think that I might.
I have no problem with the book of Galatians, so you know. I think you may be answering a different point or something.
I have no idea what you are talking about. With the bold I don't know why I should look to find out. You are getting all worked up over something for a reason that I don't know I believe. It escapes me. Universe? How many do you think that there are? Olam. Cosmos.
I am sorry that I did not expound, but if my answer was sufficient there was no need to do so. Thank you for letting me know that I fell short in communicating to you here. I don't have five or six, but I can help.
To obey the Law is not to be under it. To be under the Law can refer to condemnation or be a statement about being a Law abiding citizen. Different kinds of statements.
You don't need to be telling me what to do here. I am here for you. I don't have any hobbies. I play chess occasionally but I am not into games because there are more important things in life.
None of the above. I don't know why you would dare to make these kind of statements or insinuate these kinds of things in this way. If you answered the question let it go.
Neither.
He was born under the Law to redeem those under the Law. This is about the nation of Israel and God's Law not about being born of Israel and not observing God's Law or something.
Why you say these kind of things escapes me (I don't know is what I am trying to say).
Shalom.
It has been good communicating with you. Shalom.
Jacob
It is not a restraint. Interesting post. Again, I have nothing against you being married. Thank you for posting well.
1 Corinthians 7:7, 26-28, 32-35 NASB - 7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. ... 26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. ... 32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and [his interests] are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and [to secure] undistracted devotion to the Lord.
Jacob,
You consistently on this thread have equated your singleness with "obeying God", and then point to scripture that tells you that you are obeying Paul's opinions, not God's commands. When I point this out to you you duck, dodge, weave, etc... rather than admit what the scripture actually says. Then you give a quote that omits the relevant verses in which Paul says what you quote is his own opinion and not God's commands.
So long, Jacob. When you won't have an honest dialogue with me on this subject any conversation about it is over between the two of us.
Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.
Where is your scriptural support for what I bolded? You keep on repeating this assertion without any scriptural support. You've had days to find it and yet you haven't posted it.
It amazes me that you think the positive effects of God's laws are unintended side effects. Really? You seeming have very little appreciation for, and respect for, the infinite intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and lovingkindness of God. His multithreaded, mulitpurpose thinking and planning is displayed all throughout the Bible and yet you insist that He is very one dimensional with simplistic thinking and understanding.
And, Exodus 15:26 is not saying that the benefits of obeying Gods commandments and statutes are unintended side effects. God is saying this is thought out beforehand. He tells the Israelites this even before He gives them the 10 commandments and the rest of the laws governing the nation of Israel. He says obey me and you will be healthy. That means this is one of the reasons He gave all those laws. Exodus 15 is chronologically prior to all of God's law giving to Israel.
Right Divider
Body part
Some people like you need "the perfect verse" to understand what is described all throughout scripture. I will not attempt to satisfy that sort of need.
Who said that they are "unintended"? Once AGAIN, you like to MISREPRESENT others and FALSELY accuse them.
If a law isn't given for an intended result, and that result happens, then that is an unintended consequence, by definition. What you are saying by saying God didn't purposefully give His laws for reasons of health is that the resulting healthful lives are an unintended consequence of His laws. I'm not insulting you nor lying about you. I'm pointing out what your reasoning implies, although you don't seem to recognize the implications of your own reasoning.
Right Divider
Body part
I'm not saying that they are unintended no matter how you want to put it.
They are a natural consequence of following the intended value that God places in the marriage relationship.