Has “Homosexual” always been in the Bible?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 06. 2019
- A great article came out recently asking whether the word 'homosexual' has actually always been in our Bibles. [link here] www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019...
I think it may be a little more complicated though...
01:08 - Translation Issues
05:36 - Ancient Meanings
07:30 - Narrative Trajectory
The word "homosexual" doesn't enter the conversation until the 19th century in Germany and isn't used regularly until the 20th century in English. Before that, homosexuality wasn't considered part of someone's identity simply, a thing one might do. Which is why it doesn't enter the translations until around that time. Instead "boy molester" was probably considered a more pressing "sin" culturally to fit the term arsenekotais which is literally "man-bed". Naomi Klein recently stepped into a strangely similar debate about Victorian-era justice. She identified rulings where it appeared that homosexual men had been put to death, but upon further research by others, it appears that what we are reading as homosexual was probably understood to mean boy-molesting in a culture where homosexual identity was not properly recognized. It also appears these men were not actually executed. All that to say that for a long period "boy-molester" was probably the normative understanding of words we would now translate homosexual.
However, that does not mean that would have been the normative understanding in the ancient world.
The Levitical passages are definitely not talking about "boy-molesters" because the Hebrew is more definitively dealing with two "men". I find it much more likely that Leviticus was concerned with preserving the active male role in sex in a patriarchal society. So it's likely that the dominant cultural NT translation was simply read back onto the Hebrew during the periods cited in the article.
Paul, on the other hand, had language that would have directly described pederasty available to him and so his use of arsenekotais is difficult. My guess is that he is using the word to combine the Grecko-Roman practises around him and the Levitical framework he was undoubtedly shaped by, to refer to all of the homosexuality activity he imagined, which would have been dominated by pederasty, but perhaps not alone.
So, what do we do if Leviticus is concerned with preserving the active male role in sex and Paul is condemning all homosexual activity he observes in his culture?
Well, rather than trying to fit biblical texts into modern constructs another approach is to understand the culturally bound interpretations of specific actions present in the text but at the same time look to the overarching trajectory that defines the biblical narrative to guide us as we continue to read Scripture in an evolving cultural landscape. I would argue that this narrative is one that leads to more openness, more inclusion and more understanding of the ways culture impacts and shapes us, including our sexuality.
In other words, this article probably has more to say about translation in the 1600-1900 era than it does about ancient meanings and yet, this in itself, is a good reminder that we can't outsource meaning to a translator. We all have to internalize the story of Jesus and then determine how best to live that ethic as we face new moments and constructs.
Christianity doesn't worship a fixed textual tradition it worships a living word, the Christ, who still guides us to love and include and expand our horizons today.
Many people in this comment section make it obvious they did not listen to what he said in this video.
You confuse not agreeing with not listening. They are very different things.
Here's Dr. Michael Brown, an ancient Hebrew scholar, disagreeing with the whole argument.
czcams.com/video/q8VSWqekpCY/video.html
His whole argument is so unbiblical-anyone who actually studies the Bible knows exactly how God stands on this issue.
His argument was an article, not the Bible
@@fruit-filledolivetree5056 Oh? What "Bible" are you using? One of the many rewritten Puritan Bibles? You didn't study anything. You simply parrot Puritanism.
Thank you so much for talking about this with so much intention. I deeply appreciate this, because I've had a lot of hurt surrounding this topic. I think the hardest part is looking for concise, logical explanations that aren't biased- because either side can be very emotionally charged. This was very down-the-middle, matter of fact, and never forgot the main intent, such as remembering to operate with love.
Thank you
Grace and peace. Thanks for watching
Please don’t be deceived
The truth often hurts. Get used to it. It's the way of Christianity. We are here to prove ourselves to God, not each other. We are to love God first and foremost, with all out heart and being. Why do you reject Him and His design so? Do you not love God, first? Then do as He has designed you to do. All you are doing is rebelling against that and spitting in His face and ours, frankly, as Christians.
Defile God's design and you will be defiled. You will feel His wrath:
czcams.com/video/nToNUQ8c1RQ/video.html
czcams.com/video/GhTjEbNgTQM/video.html
Good luck in justifying yourself in front of God.
2 Timothy 4:3, NLT: "For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear."
Guess what,God himself love same sex couples love.But you stupid homophobic idiots will say it's a sin.As a heterosexual i support same sex love
@@JohnPeter-wk8sz No he doesnt
This is horrible interpretation of scripture.
@@KarenWasherGrudzien what’s sad is we say God is all knowing so he knew that millions of people would be gay but your telling me God would know people would be gay and damn them to hell Bc of who they are attracted to when he could just remove the desire … So basically you’re telling me God is evil….. Bc that’s literally torture
@@devinspears3004 That is a really good point.
As a lesbian Christian idk why I find it so heartbreaking because I keep telling myself that I don’t need to date anyone to be happy all I need is Jesus but when I hear about how homosexuality is a sin and why it’s considered a sin I break down
Edit: I’m bi
I hope you know you are loved first, always, and above all else.
Wow Ive been feeling almost the same way..it makes me feel torn sometimes..bc I have tried to make myself straight for years in hopes of that bringing me to heaven but it's just not gonna happen. I still want to have a relationship with God and have been trying to figure out how to do that while also living a happy life. I really wish the bible addressed homosexuality as we know it today. And when I think about, I ask myself, "would God want me to spend the rest of my life alone and miserable?" Because it felt like that was the only option other than forcing myself to be with a man (which I'm not gonna do either) I do believe that marriage was meant for a man and woman according to the Bible..and also that sex was created between a man and a woman under the covenant of marriage..but that still doesn't give me a clear answer as to how I should live my life happily and pleasing to God.. because the truth is we all want to experience love with another person..but I don't want my heart to deceive me into darkness. I also don't believe that God would condemn an entire group of people to be celibate either.. because inorder to be happily celibate, you must be chosen by God to do so...so it's just confusing bc the Bible does not address innately same sex attracted people..just people who pursue homosexual sex to feed their lust but not in a loving way that we are talking about today.
@@victoriagauthier2369 Keep pursuing God and keep believing in the blood of Jesus, he paid everything on the cross, and with that includes being able to cast out your own demons. You too have the power to cast out demons, and to heal yourself and others, you just need to understand that the enemy doesn't want you to know that you have this power. Always pray everyday, keep seeking God, and asking him for peace and understanding. Hold on to instruction for it is your life.
As a lesbian, you can not be Christian. Christian means one following Christ, who follows God, which you are not doing. You are not even trying.
As a woman, you are to seek a good, Godly man and serve him as he serves Christ, who mediates for us to God.
Even angels have been punished harshly for sexual immorality. God made sex for procreation, not self pleasure. Why must you spit in His face?
czcams.com/video/GYpzaknyyWY/video.html
czcams.com/video/GhTjEbNgTQM/video.html
czcams.com/video/y4_iG7jRJMw/video.html
May you find Christ one day!
Please ignore those crackpot comments about demons in that last message. Love yourself. be who you are, and celebrate the sexuality God gave you. Break free from all this bigoted, misguided, wicked crap about what the Bible says and what God says. These people are as evil as the capricious, nasty, cruel God they believe in. And don't let them kid you it's because God loves you so much He wants to save you. All that stuff is crap as well. God's Love is Love not Hate. Please, please, always remeber that - be liberated by that love .
The beat in the intro is fire
Thank you for this video because there is so much confusing about the word homosexuality in the Bible to where families are torn apart, depression & suicide. Blessed are the pure in heart.
Grace and peace. Thanks for watching
This guy is lying to you, he is misusing the Bible to justify the practice of same-gender sex by using boy molesters as the narrative, however, he leaves out the part where Jesus quotes God from Gen 2;18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10;6-9, 1 Cor 7;2, in Matt 19;5, For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife; What God has put together let no mankind take apart.
The only 'monogamous' sexual relationship God accepts is between HUSBAND and WIFE. If God did care about how sex is to be done why would he have created the two sexes and told them to be "fruitful and multiply" Gen 1;27-28?
We all know same-gender sex cannot "be fruitful and multiply", in fact, evolution favors heterosexuality which confirms God's commandment of male and female sex only.
So true
To be pure in heart means to be loyal to Jesus and trust Him, including what He says.
Romans 1:27 - And likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire towards one another, males with males performing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral... *nor homosexuals*... will inherit the kingdom of God.
@@michaal105 Stop lying to people and spreading Puritan bs. The Bible never had the word "homosexual" in it before Puritans put it there. And Romans 1 is talking about the sexual idolatry of the Israelites, hence why you quoted it completely out of context, as if you can gather its full meaning with 1 verse at face value.
Check this out! As I mentioned earlier, the word “homosexual” was not used in a Biblical translation until the Revised Standard Version first printed it in 1946. In more recent editions of the RSV, they have changed the word, and now use the phrase “sexual perverts.” Prior to 1946, dating back to the 17th Century, we see the King James Version using the phrase, “abusers of themselves with mankind.” An appropriate translation.
Personally I don't like "abusers of themselves with mankind". I can see how they got it, but I think, rather, it's possibly talking about men who sexually abuse others. The word doesn't say men-bedders, it says masculine-bedders. If you look at the ideal about masculinity at the time, it makes a lot of sense.
@@MusicalRaichu No, abusers of themselves with mankind clearly refers to sodomy, it's not hard to see.
@@chungusultimate yes i agree with you. the KJV translators made the same mistake as the original RSV translators and iirc the video refers to german translators doing it too, where they interpreted the problematic word in light of cultural assumptions of their day rather than in light of the culture of the original recipients.
the problem with that all this is that not only are we targetting the wrong people with the scriptures, we're failing to target those who it's really about.
@@MusicalRaichu I hope you know the bible condemns homosexuality and this video is a false doctrine.
@@chungusultimate I hope you know that the bible nowhere condemns homosexuality and this video is an attempt towards correcting a false doctrine that has caused incalculable harm.
Comments be like: how dare you do your own research and not believe exactly like I believe. I won't listen la la la la la FALSE TEACHER la la la la"
Most Conservatives are like that.
@@michelled.4874 fr
Alright here's some research for you.
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” Genesis 2:24
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew 19: 4-6
Both Yaweh and Christ have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. We also know that any act of sexuality outside the confines of a marriage is sinful, the standards of God are so high Christ calls lust adultery of the heart. To try and twist the Bible to fit some kind of pro LGBT narrative because some words referencing boy lovers somehow acquitted the LGBT community of their sin is the real false teaching. If as a Christian you are accepted by society you should be fearful that you are on the wide road and flee from the earthly desires for acceptance. Our Lord said himself that not servant is better than his master. Do not seek to be loved by the world more than the Lord himself. The Lord spoke TRUTH and was put to death for it.
@@roguerider8188 Jesus was definitely gay, I mean he got nailed by a bunch of guys on the cross right?... sounds pretty gay to me😚🌈
I can’t believe adults still believe in fairytales in 2021😂 that’s hilarious... Hope you have a good day you homophobe.
@@lyle_waddell sorry you're so offended by what you believe is a fairy tale. Don't know why you'd bother engaging with someone you think believes in children's stories.
Since you did claim that it's a fairy tale I will point out the fact that even secular sources don't refute that Jesus was a real person, was killed, and that his followers believed they saw him raised from the dead.
I do not fear homosexuals, nor do I hate them, I actually quite respect and love homosexual Christians as they live a life that is more difficult than that of a straight Christian. If we are discussing non church member homosexuals then I don't really bother thinking about them, their life isn't my business. But as a believer it's my business to call out other believers when their teachings violate the laws of the Bible and of Christ. Sorry that bothers you. But I'll keep you in my prayers.
I like this video. Do you know where I can find more about people getting the sentence of death as opposed to actually being put to death, like you mentioned at 4:40?
Naomi Wolf ran into this in her latest book www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/24/naomi-wolf-admits-blunder-over-victorians-and-sodomy-executions
In Israel bookstores dont recognize our western bibles. An old Jewish teacher was in an American bible store the gal working in there said if you're looking to buy a Bible we have the KJV and its half off, he looks at her and say "at least". For real y'all
@Brent Braxston I'm just repeating what the Jewish scholar said
So helpful. Thank uou
Hey, Just Wanted To Inform You; In Your Bio/About Section On Your Channel's Page, There's A Typo In The Sentence "Realizing this and coming to understand that God is love _we a rm_ surprising acceptance and scandalous grace..." & I Highkey Was Honestly Quite Curious On What The Initial Message You Intended On Communicating/Getting Across Had Actually Been At The Time Of Writing It (Unless It Was Simply Meant To Just Say "Arm" Lol). Anywho; Wonderful Video, Seen It Years Ago & Something Empowered Me To Find It Again. Really Truly Wish All Evangelicals/Fundamentalists Would/Could See This & Would View/Process It's Contents With An Open Heart & Mind With The Willingness To Learn, Understand & Hopefully; To Accept & Love. Thanks Again!
Thanks. We’ll fix that. The word was “affirm” sometimes font ligatures (F to I) don’t copy and paste well.
Watching in 2021, can't wait for this to be released!!
This was fascinating, thank you!
Thanks for watching.
Fantastic, good man. Thank you so much !
i'm having trouble seeing how they say arsenokoites is based on the words in leviticus. there may be an implicit similarity of patriarchal values, but the word itself is only superficially similar. the problem is that it says not to lie with a male as you bed a woman. to combine "male" the object of one clause with the verb "bed" of a separate clause would create a misleading combination because "male" is not the object of "bed".
I don't think this is particularly important, but I was wondering if you have any thoughts.
I think it’s plausible that Paul is pulling the language from there. He uses the Hebrew Scriptures in a lot of “inventive” ways. That said, I don’t think the issue is parsing the works as much as trying to understand what Paul is imagining when he writes. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a conservative Jewish man living in the Greco Roman world to condemn homosexuality as exploitative. I think if Paul had time today he would see the world differently. After all this was a man who couldn’t quite get his head around a world without slavery but I don’t think he would advocate for going back if he saw our world today.
@@commonschurch actually i've reconsidered. "arsenokoites" is probably against the dangerous practice of using "arsenic" during "coitus" as a contraceptive. very cruel for a man to force his wife to do that.
Long story -- in the 1980s I worked at a hybrid (wood waste/geothermal) power plant. One day a guy comes in, asking to speak with the fuel buyer. He and I started talking and he pulled out a mason jar containing a goopy, dark semi-liquid. The base -- true layer -- was olive pits, a great little fuel, used for years to produce the energy needed to run the canneries. The old guy had a special twist, though -- he ran the pits through his pigs first. Then he collected the droppings, which he believed amplified the BTU value of the pits. So this little episode reflects my understanding of the written Word: There is a truth at the base, but it's been run through so many pigs (i.e. cultural translators and small-minded followers) that one has to really dig through the shit to find it. Words are powerful; context is imperative.
And unfortunately most of the pigs that come to your door trying to sell their shit have never gotten their noses in it to see what it really says.
Hahah, the "narrative" of God is male and female, man and wife sex only he told them to be fruitful and multiply Gen 1;27-28. What same-sex couple do you know multiplied by having sex? Why would have created the two sexes if didn't care who they had sex with?
The 'truth at the base" came when Jesus quotes God from Gen 2;18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Cor 7;2, and affirms Man and Wife sex only in Matt 19;5 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife; What God has put together let no "mankind" take apart.
This guy is clearly misrepresenting and misusing the context of the Bible to justify the particular sin of same-gender sex which is included in the book of Leviticus along with fornication, adultery, incest, necrophilia, and yes, pedophilia, his trying exclude the practice of homosexuality/ LGBTQ as being a sexually immoral sin which no one has the authority to do, I don't care how much you hate it.
No one is exempt, no one has a license to commit any kind of sin including the practice of same-gender sex/LGBTQ there is no excuse for sin John 15;22, and no one has the authority to abolish God's law against homosexuality/LGBTQ.
From the beginning to end it is MALE and FEMALE, MAN and WIFE OT and NT. Your little story doesn't matter when it comes to God's word...😊
Remarkable. Answers a very basic question for me, something I had suspected. Thank you.
This guy is lying to you, he is the one misusing the Bible to justify a sexually immoral sin because people don't want to hear the real truth and would accept a lie rather than the truth. In Matt 19;5 Jesus quotes God from Gen 2;18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10;6-9, 1 Cor 7;2, For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife; What God has put together let no mankind take apart.
Man and wife are the only monogamous sexual relationship God accepts why would he have created the two sexes if he didn't have in his mind for the opposites sex to be together?
"Do not be deceived" 1 Cor 6:9-11, Rev 21;8-10 the homosexual/ the effeminate/LGBTQ will not inherit heaven nor the earth but will be cast into the lake of fire.
This is such a big oops that I can't even-
So many people hurt just because of a mistranslation.....
It sucks, I don't see this as "applying Bible scriptures" but self-analysis.
Man is always interjecting their laws instead of god's. That's what happened in the beginning Adam told Eve that if she eats or even touches the fruit from the tree of knowledge she will die. Which leaves you open to being corrupted because the serpent says you can touch it it won't kill you and when she does it then it doesn't kill her and then she thinks that the other part is a lie. and then to top it all off Adam tries to blame God saying the woman you gave me fed me the fruit. What an idiot. And just shows that knowledge does not give you wisdom.
@@deeveevideos You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV
@@tomboyqu3726 no one said you have to just read the KJV. there're are tons of versions as you stated. but the bible is made of multiple books. were the books in the bible the same just in different order? if that is the case oh well. and you can check the reliability by comparing all the version and you can see what isn't real when it goes way off the versions of the same book. no one can make you do anything. so if you want to find the truth then study what is troubling you and figure out if its a lie or telling the truth. but Christianity is based on the new testament the four books of mark luke and john. read those and find the errors or truth in them. but ultimately it is up to you to do it.
NO< NO mistranslation, atheists will interpret to make it acceptable.
Great insight
I have struggled with my sexuality for a very long time. I became depressed because of it and contemplated suicide. If I was going to go to hell anyway, why wait. That's what I used to think. I remember crying and asking God to speak to me but there was only silence. Why would he speak and waste his time with someone insignificant. I was like that for FIVE long and excruciatingly painful years filled with depression, hate, and suicidal thoughts. I finally left Christianity and tried many religious practices none called to me except Buddhism. Through Buddhism I learned to forgive, to be patient, and to love again. For those in the comments who continue to spew the same regurgitated biblical scriptures I truely wish you find peace and to stop giving the classic back handed love I was given by many Christians of different denominations.
Hahah, so you rather believe in a Fat Man in a diaper if it allows you to commit the sexually immoral sin of same-gender sex? One thing, does Budda promise you everlasting life? Budda claims enlightenment, not eternity. The sad part for you is you have no idea of what love is nor of what did for you or you just don't want to accept the real reason why Jesus gave his life.
You prayed to God but think you got no answer but you fail to understand that God already gave you the answer you just refused to accept it because you really didn't like it that's why you left Christianity.
There is only one God and that is God, you'd better rethink what you're doing because the immorality of same-gender sex is very serious to God why would he have created the two sexes if the act wasn't an issue?😊
Yet you are still here while others have certainly followed through in their suicide. God surely loves you🤍
Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality. You can be a follower of Christ.
Don't follow those who spew hate, but love yourself, set certain boundaries,
and know that since Jesus loved gay folks, then you can love yourself and
love gays too. Chao.
Hey I feel you buddy, I hope you know you’re not alone
Buddhism also condemns homosexuality.
Can someone please help me out, I’m genuinely trying to find the definite answer of “is homosexuality accepted by God or not?”
I feel like I probably missed the main answer in the video...
Ok np, so the video talks about whether the word homosexuality was always in the Bible, but the Bible still speaks out against homosexual actions in the original versions of the Bible. This guy is also arguing that not all homosexual actions are immoral, but only those that are dehumanizing. This is not true however, because in Romans 1:26-27 the Bible clearly condemns the action of a man with a man or a women with a women. So the definite answer is that it is not accepted by God.
you might wish to consider the discussion on this channel
czcams.com/channels/vxHn5v4XXNPdugStF3l6BQ.html
@┏┳┛ that's a common misconception. I have not been able to find any statement in the Bible that says that. there's an obsoslete prohibition on feminizing a male, a description of pagan excesses and a word whose meaning is disputed. none of them say "all same secs acts are not allowed" or anything like that.
also homasexualty is a trait you have, not something you engage in. maybe you're thinking that two people of the same secs shouldn't go to bed, which would impact what homasecsual people would naturally want to do, but "engage in homosecsualty" itself is a meaningless statement.
@┏┳┛ i'm afraid it's those who claim that it's a sin that are twisting the bible and hurting innocent people.
leviticus tell men not to do it with a guy in the same way they do it woman. it's only about a man not poking it in another guy (the latter taking a woman's role), not a ban on all same-secs acts. that would have to say "men don't do it with men (at all), women don't do it with women" which it does not say.
and the new testament references are about male-bedders. no one knows what that means . even if it's something to do with men doing it with men, what is the connotation? is it a ban on loving relationships where people are doing nothing to hurt anyone and in fact doing something that is beneficial to the relationship? or is it denouncing some of the exploitative and indecent practices that were happening in that part of the world at the time?
please stop trying to make a sin justifiable by twisting the holy bible. the sin i'm talking about is discriminating against and oppressing a minority group that you haven't bothered to take the trouble to understand.
@@MusicalRaichu I feel like he twisting apples and oranges it condemed it but only one way” the Bible explocitly says sexual and marriage relations to be between man and woman , so anything outside of that would be outside of Gods definition, the definition is clear and can’t be shaken soo idk what the world ur talking about 😭
When you say 'young boy' or 'child', do you include adolescents?
I’m terms of pederasty, yes, primarily young adolescents.
Oh so homosexuality isn't a sin. If life is basing on this ethic of love. Right my church needs you man.
False
Sonovgod Z can you explain?
@Sam Gborkorquellie Roman's 1:26-28 1Corinthiens 6:9-11 mark 10:6-9
@Sam Gborkorquellie ^
Sonovgod Z it was a mistranslation. Stop using the Bible to hate
@Commons Church There's a video about 2 hours long in 2 parts featuring a lady in front of a chalkboard, picking apart the committee that first introduced the word homosexual to an English Bible translation. She also picked apart every single clobber verse. Epic. But I'm having trouble finding it. Do you happen to know this lecture?
I haven't seen that one but I'd be interested if you do find it.
@@commonschurch Don't know if it's the same one but if it's the one I'm thinking of the updated version is two videos each two hours long but I found it well worth the time.
czcams.com/video/MBwajcvZtqw/video.html
czcams.com/video/3JTBpomMH5c/video.html
@@MusicalRaichu , you are awesome. 💙💜♥️
Unclobbering the Tangled Mess really makes me believe non-affirming churches just fell for the wrong translation.
♥️🧡💛💚💙💜
@@celestebehret2681 At the time the mistranslation was published and even for a while later, people did not understand homosexuality as much as we do now. Even now our understanding is incomplete, e.g. we don't know how or why it happens.
Given lack of understanding, I don't think it's surprising that people came to the conclusion it was perverted, evil and disgusting, especially when you read the Bible saying it's wrong. The majority of people are straight and to most of them the thought of it makes them cringe.
The real problem is that as our understanding grew, Christians were left behind. If the Bible says it's wrong, who cares what science says, right? Just like some still believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old based on what the Bible says in spite of undisputable evidence to the contrary. There are warnings in the Bible about not straying from God's revealed path, and if scientific discovery says something contrary to what we've concluded, well it's understandable some people will reject the evidence in front of them and stick to their interpretation of the Bible.
@@MusicalRaichu , yes. That's why I love the lens saying that the original Bible only condemned molesting, abuse, rape etc.
There are LGBT+ people out there who think they can't be who they are and still be Christian. There are denominations who attack saying that LGBT+ people CAN'T be Christian. I adore the scholarship that says God never condemned your orientation to begin with.
I also find harmony with "a day representing an aeon" for Creation, and the singing of the spheres picked up by our space program, all compatible. Big Bang or Narnia's song, does it matter? Madeline L'Engle farandolae worshipping the Lord from within the mitochondria... All compatible. 💙
Where are you getting this from? Can you name the actual scripture instead of saying "in the text?"
The two main verses I referred to here are Lev 18:22 and Rom 1:27 but those are pretty easy to just go and look up. The bigger more important question though is how do we understand them in light of the whole text of scripture.
@@ronneff5894 We can go deeper into the text when we compare these two verses to the whole of Scripture. The wrong question is what does the Bible say about homosexuality. The right question is what does the Bible say about marriage. From the first pages of Genesis, the first marriage is broken by sin. The wedge between man and woman mirrors the chasm between humans and God. Almost every story thereafter is about the breakdown in marriage: Abraham and Sarah, Lot and his wife, Issac and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel. There is theme here being developed. You hit the nail right on the head, this theme points to God's love for people. It's a symbol like the rainbow or the water from a rock. The thing is the symbol is more than a representation, it's a promise, an oath. God does not take oaths lightly, and wedding vows that distort God's love are far more harmful than people realize.
Dr. Michael Brown, a Hebrew scholar, completely dismantles CC's linguist argument. It's just wrong in every way and leans into his interpretation of ancient culture to read into the text what he wants to find.
You can't do that. He also ignores the many texts in the Bible that says sex is only permitted within marriage, and marriage is between a man and a woman.
So even if CC is correct, that only makes the Bible silent on homosexuality... Except if you look outside the two verses he wants you to pay attention to, and only pay attention to, homosexuality is implicitly condemned.
Here's Dr. Brown's linguistic analysis: czcams.com/video/q8VSWqekpCY/video.html
Thank you ☺️
So how do we explain Sodom and Gomorrah? What was the Leviticus translation mean?
Ezekiel 16:48-50 says “this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” That seems to line up with what we read in the story in genesis where the town tried to rape visitors.
@@commonschurch I think that's a bit of a miss justice in the text. The question was God literally destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah , smote it from the face of the earth. Not for being arrogant but for sexual immorality. I think you are really walking around the message her of sexual immorality. Thoughts?
I guess I’m arguing that rape is sexual immortality regardless of sexual orientation.
Jared Ambrose You may want to dig in deeper on that. Even in Jesus‘s time historians of the day, such as Josephus, when discussing Sodom and Gomorrah talked about the sin being a lack of hospitality. It wasn’t until the fourth or fifth century that we see the conversation change and begin to discuss the sexual activity in that passage. At any rate, even if you were going to use Genesis 19 for some type of sexual condemnation, the most you could come up with is a condemnation of gang rape. Last I checked gang rape was wrong for both straight and gay people. Oh and by the way, the term sodomized to describe a sexual act did not come in to play until the ninth century, hundreds of years after Christ and 1000’s of years after the destruction of Sodom.
@@jaredambrose3232 You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV
This is so informative - I’ve been looking for something like this for ages! Could you perhaps make a similar video on certain bible quotes relating to women and their submission eg not talking in church, asking husbands to explain things, not holding positions of authority in church, etc? I’d love to hear your viewpoint! :)
Thanks. Check this one out :) czcams.com/video/4VHvRltRjBc/video.html
@@commonschurch This guy is knowingly or unknowingly twisting the Bible.Beware!Homosexuality has been condemned all the way from the beginning of the church so much so that St.John Chrysostom(an important church father-400 AD) is called a homophobe nowadays.It has been condemned in the old testament,in the new testament and by all church fathers(The early Christians saints)
@@evanssamuelbiju4315 its literally condemned in every world religion too, excluding new agey ones like bahai. This guy is spreading some very dangerous theology if he is telling people that the bible doesnt forbid it and condemn it.
If it’s from the Old Testament these laws have all been fulfilled. The New Testament is for our time.
@@evanssamuelbiju4315 that’s the church and man that prohibited it. Because they themselves hated it. U have to understand the languages and different meanings of the words.
What about Matthew 19:4-5? In regards to marriage Jesus said: “Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,” and He also said: “ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
Three times Jesus mentions the male and female union. Once, when God made the created the first union at the beginning. Then, when a man leaves his father and mother (second man and woman union), then unites with his wife (third man and woman union).
If this man and female union isn't important to God (as in God is ok with homosexual unions) then why did Jesus refer back to Genesis? He could have answered their question without quoting scripture about male and female union. Didn't God DESIGN a man and woman to be together?
I don’t think you’d find many people, regardless on their views of LGBTQ inclusion, arguing that heterosexual relationships aren’t important or even normative. That seems to be a fundamental part of our biology and procreative need. The only argument is whether we can and should affirm those human beings, also beloved children of God, who do not conform to the norm.
@@commonschurch yes, all people are important, made and loved by God. I just don't see biblical verses that support same sex unions.
I believe gay, but celibate, because I can't find biblical support to suggest otherwise.
With respect it’s going to be hard to make it through life if you need to find biblical support for everything you do. A better model is perhaps to internalize the ethic of Jesus and make decisions based on that.
It's going to be hard to make it through life without Jesus in our hearts. The holy spirit will always show us where God is in all this. Tbh.. I think life would be easier if I have biblical verses that support what I am doing, because if the Bible goes against what I'm doing, then I would realize I have drifted away from Christ, a sin is the separation from God.
@@joyfulspirit cause of new translations daah!!🤣
This is a very interesting conclusion. As you said into the video, it was about the men who were molesting or abusing boys in that time, there was also nothing in the Bible that says anything about a woman lying with girls or women lying with women. What also doesn’t add up is; the whole analysis of the Bible is love. To have room in your heart for Jesus, and if people weren’t “allowed” to have homosexual relationships, it’s just like saying you can’t love someone because you’re a certain gender. And the word “homosexual” wasn’t even used in bibles before the 20th century. It was prior to men sleeping/molesting *boys* not men sleeping with other men.
But he also noted that in Leviticus it is concerned with the man’s role in sexual acts and essentially says that a man cannot be in the “passive” or as natural law would say is the woman’s role which does indicate something other than just molesters. Also, most people don’t know that catholic teaching acknowledges that there are some people that might have sexual tendencies other than that of a man and a woman and rather than saying “you’re going straight to hell” it says that those should practice chastity so that they don’t act upon those tendencies.
Very interesting
Needing Rules to live by or Roles to play is a Developmental Stage.
Not a Spiritual requirement.
The Gospel was essentially bringing people who were used to Rules and Roles up a notch Developmentally into something less concrete. If you haven't reached this Developmental Stage, you're not going to understand or like it - no matter how many times or how many ways it is described (nor who describes it - like Jesus and Paul!).
If you still just _need_ Rules, find some you like and follow them.
And by that sword (Rules) that you use to condemn others, you will eventually find yourself condemned.
Then you'll see the need for something New...
You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV
Praise YAHUSHA HAMASCHIACH. Thank you brother. Good video!
Shalom! Praise Yah.
So, what's the conclusion? xD
Right when you were closing your argument, I got to a conclusion, and right at this very moment you said especifically what I thought. I feel like a lot of pieces finally fit together and my christian way has a new gust of fresh air. Literal chills. Thank you very much.
Grace and peace
Read your bible and pray about this. The above is in error.....26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:26-27
@@enigma4281 It's specifically because of reading that I can't believe God has any problem with homosexual relationships. What bad fruit does that bear? In fact, the original wording may have been mistranslated, considering that there was no concept of homosexuality as there is today. Doing some research, I found probable basis for translating the greek wording of the new testament more accurately to "child abusers". But still, I have to do more research.
Peace, grace and love.
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Matthew 7:15-20
@@MattPaes Hi! How may I get in touch with you? email ? social media?
Thank you so so much for this! I am a lesbian and me and my girlfriend are both religious but I have been having doubts whether or not God actually loves me or not and I know I didn’t choose to be gay but I don’t feel accepted anywhere in the religion but this is reassuring to hear so thank you again aaaa
Grace and peace
wdym. its just lies
@@jeffyboy9657 explain why it's lies? I dont mean to be rude tho! I just wanna hear what u think
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Romans 1:26-27
I'm not about to tell you what to do or what to belive. I want to clarify what the bible says. In these verses, Paul is writing to the romans about lust in between women and women or men and men contrary to nature. God will always love you but there is always a penalty for sin. Please repent. I don't say this to be mean but to clarify what the bible says.
You are loved fully and completely by our creator! Do not ever doubt that. I do not care what anyone ever says to you! Jesus loves you, God is your rock! Never let an imperfect human shake your relationship with your creator! Stand firm in your faith that you are loved fully and completely. Stay focused on the path God wants for you. Pray about it always. It's between you and God, no one else. God knows your heart, God understands you fully. Thank you for sharing part of your testimony!+
Homosexuals wasn't added to the RSV Bible till 1946
Well done
I am a gay person as well and I'm wondering what do you say if the KJV Bible? because I feel like KJV did say "mankind" and not "boy". just wondering your thoughts
That’s the main question of the article this video is referencing. Is that a good translation?
That said, as I explain the video I’m not convinced that Romans is exclusively talking about boys/pederasty and is instead influenced by the larger Greco-Roman culture’s interaction with Paul’s understanding of Judaism.
The real question for me then is whether we can move past the strict interpretation of singular verses to embrace Jesus’ larger ethic of love for neighbour regardless of our differences.
anywhere in the bible where same sex union is mention there is nothing good to say about it, God's plan fro the very beginning is a man and a woman, there is nothing there for a man to receive another man, penis was made for the vagina.
@End of days yes but I'm talking about the biblical scholars who beleive that those scriptures are mistranslated
@@bicuriousdirtbikeboi2594 hmmmm, I am going to stick with the word of God as it is, man will find anything to justify their action, these so call "biblical scholars will lead many away from the kingdom", let the holy spirit be your guide. fast and pray for wisdom. woman was made for man.
@@endofdays7708 You really should look up the original Hebrew and Greek texts, I think you're gonna be shocked to find that there is a very good chance that those scriptures talking about homosexuality were not talking about homosexuality at all.
Watching in 2020 and I love this very insightful
So glad you found it :)
@@commonschurch Can you explain Sodom and Gomorrah? Can you also explain to me when God first created the first man - Adam...why he then created Eve the first woman to be with him. Did He make a mistake?? When he first created Adam in the garden of Eden everything was it not perfect. I just wonder why He would create this and deem it as perfect. Is the not the perfect model or....??????
@@alexiscolby9415 Sodom and Gomorrah is a terrible story about treating outsiders with utter contempt and sexual violence. Everything in that story should be condemned. Ezekiel 16:49-50
Would you consider yourself to be a good person?
Try the test: How many lies have you told, and what do you call someone who lies? Have you ever stolen something (even when you were small. Even from your parents. Even a sweet), and what do you call someone who steals? Have you ever taken God’s name in vain (very serious; in Old Testament times, the Jews wouldn’t even say the name of God for fear of blasphemy) - even ‘OMG’? Jesus said whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart; have you ever looked with lust? One more: Ever disrespected your parents?
Well I’m not judging you - but if you’ve done these things then you’re a liar, thief, blasphemer, adulterer-at-heart and rebel, so you're not good enough to go to heaven; that’s how seriously God takes sin. He is Holy (perfectly good/righteous and separate from sin) which means that He is perfect in justice; that means that just like a just judge does sentence criminals to pay for the wrong they caused, do does God sentence the payment of all sins - and if He were to judge you by the moral law (we’ve already looked at 4 commandments) would you be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? The answer is hell - the wrath of God upon you for your sin
And the just God will punish ALL sin. Is that concerning?
But fortunately, God’s will is not that you perish. He wants all men everywhere to be saved. So do you know what He did for us guilty sinners? In self-giving mercy, He sent His Son Jesus Christ (and here is why). He lived the perfect life that we should have lived - tempted at all points and yet He NEVER sinned. Through His life, being in very nature God, He revealed God to men; but we in our hatred condemned Him to death. On that cross as Jesus suffered, He took on the sin of the world and was judged in our place; receiving God’s wrath. You and I broke God’s law, but Jesus paid the fine. God can justly forgive us.
On that cross He died, then He was buried, but 3 days later He was raised from the dead - conquering death and Hell and ushering in The Kingdom of God. He then ascended to the right hand of God the Father (where He came from) now Lord of the living and the dead. God has fixed a date when He will judge the world in righteousness. What you need to do is repent (In humility, acknowledge your sin before God and turn to a relationship with Him) and trust ALONE in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross; and God will grant you the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then be baptised. Jesus' perfect righteousness will be accredited to you and you can stand in a relationship with the God of the Universe, a Father. If you repent and believe the gospel.
ROMANS 10:9 - If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
@@commonschurch Is God going to let you into heaven after He judges the world?
Try the test: How many lies have you told, and what do you call someone who lies? Have you ever stolen something (even when you were small. Even from your parents. Even a sweet), and what do you call someone who steals? Have you ever taken God’s name in vain (very serious; in Old Testament times, the Jews wouldn’t even say the name of God for fear of blasphemy) - even ‘OMG’? Jesus said whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart; have you ever looked with lust? One more: Ever disrespected your parents?
Well I’m not judging you - but if you’ve done these things then you’re a liar, thief, blasphemer, adulterer-at-heart and rebel, so you're not good enough to go to heaven; that’s how seriously God takes sin. He is Holy (perfectly good/righteous and separate from sin) which means that He is perfect in justice; that means that just like a just judge does sentence criminals to pay for the wrong they caused, do does God sentence the payment of all sins - and if He were to judge you by the moral law (we’ve already looked at 4 commandments) would you be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? The answer is hell - the wrath of God upon you for your sin
And the just God will punish ALL sin. Is that concerning?
But fortunately, God’s will is not that you perish. He wants all men everywhere to be saved. So do you know what He did for us guilty sinners? In self-giving mercy, He sent His Son Jesus Christ (and here is why). He lived the perfect life that we should have lived - tempted at all points and yet He NEVER sinned. Through His life, being in very nature God, He revealed God to men; but we in our hatred condemned Him to death. On that cross as Jesus suffered, He took on the sin of the world and was judged in our place; receiving God’s wrath. You and I broke God’s law, but Jesus paid the fine. God can justly forgive us.
On that cross He died, then He was buried, but 3 days later He was raised from the dead - conquering death and Hell and ushering in The Kingdom of God. He then ascended to the right hand of God the Father (where He came from) now Lord of the living and the dead. God has fixed a date when He will judge the world in righteousness. What you need to do is repent (In humility, acknowledge your sin before God and turn to a relationship with Him) and trust ALONE in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross; and God will grant you the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then be baptised. Jesus' perfect righteousness will be accredited to you and you can stand in a relationship with the God of the Universe, a Father. If you repent and believe the gospel.
ROMANS 10:9 - If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
I read somewhere that King James "HIMSELF" was a homosexual and the King Jame's Bible was written to highlight and support power differentials between LORD and SUBJECT as between SELF and Self.
I’ve been hearing this for like 20 years
What’s the true translation of Roman’s 1 26-27
Just curious, if homosexuality is not a sin
There’s not really a lot of debate about the translation of that passage. If you get a chance to watch the video it talks about how translation isn’t the issue as much as cultural bias.
@@commonschurch could you find the original translation of Roman’s 1 26 27 please
@@commonschurch like maybe find a 1800’s German Bible for the translation
Unfortunately I don’t have any old German bibles or speak German but I can read Greek and the basic translation of Rom 1.26-27 in most modern Bibles is sound. That said it’s helpful to note that “natural” phusikos in Greek is not an argument from biology but one from social order.
@@commonschurch if translation isn’t the issue, then that would mean cultural bias wouldn’t have had any impact on the translation so bringing it up is meaningless. Plus, western cultures were built on the backbone of Christianity so whatever cultural bias you want to point at was created by these very passages which you just said don’t have an issue in their translation.
Good video
It's not like its an entirely new concept that randomly materialized out of nowhere. There is written proof that the concept of homosexuality existed in 2100bc in "The epic of Gilgamesh" which has two male characters kissing. (Gilgamesh and Enkidu) Gilgamesh described his feelings for Enkidu as "Loved him like a woman"
Homosexuality has been around as long as humanity. It’s the idea of sexuality as an identity that is a modern innovation.
I appreciate the insight you provided in this video and I really hope this was the way things were supposed to be. I'm not homophobic and in fact want to actively support it through evaluation. My closest friend is bisexual, and she draws me closer to Jesus despite her not being a Christian. I hate to see the stigma around homosexuality becoming a barrier for her. But I hear people saying someone's homosexuality got eradicated through faith. Testimonies like these make me question how that would've happened, and wand to hear what is your view on that, or how would you explain that?
This recent video explains a lot of the issues
czcams.com/video/oRVREnnKMPQ/video.html
I want bisexual christian women
@@JohnPeter-wk8sz lol . stop it.
For me, it is pushing gays and lesbians from God and certainly does not represent love in any way shape or form. If gays and lesbians can fulfil Jesus greatest commandments then what is the problem? On these 2 commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Who is God? God is Love!
We are supposed to be reborn and flee from sin. Applies to all
Amen!
What about Romans 1:26-28 ?
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
Very interesting vid. Love all the care you put into expressing the context of the scripture. This can be a confusing subject to cross reference with other Christians. I just think that some people want to find an excuse to act a certain way towards others by misusing scriptures out of context. And so you get many “Christians” who don’t even try to understand the context of what’s in the Bible. That really frustrates me because those people are stopping themselves from getting a deeper understanding of the book that we choose to live our lives by.
Do you understand the part where Jesus quotes God from Gen 2;18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10;6-9 in Matt 19;5 For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife; what God has put together let no man take apart?
The LGBTQ is misusing the Bible to justify the practice of same-gender sex this guy is saying a monogamous same-sex relationship is not a sin that Jesus accepts same-sex marriage and that's just not true...
@@armymanssg508 I don't think any of us can speak for Jesus especially when we have no record of him addressing a particular topic.
fyi gen 2 says that men and women get married and explains why it happens. says nothing one way or another about same-secs marriage. if the same reasons apply, then it's straightforward to see that "for this reason" two men or two women should get married.
Hahaha, Wrong, Jesus did address the topic of marriage, he quotes God from Gen 2;18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Cor 7;2, in Matt 19:5 For this reason, a MAN shall leave his father and mother to be with his WIFE. Jesus only said it once because the marriage of males and females one man, one woman, should have already been understood.
The word of God never said two men nor two women should get married, God forbids the practice of same-gender sex Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, he goes on to explain why the particular act happened in Rom 1:24-28, and it has to do with love nor the truth, God gave them over to vile affections the woman gave up that natural use for man as did the mean give up the natural use for a woman doing unspeakable acts one to another.
In 1 Cor 6:9-11, and Rev 21:8-10 God says the effeminate, the homosexually/sexually immoral will not inherit heaven or the earth but will be cast into the lake of fire, pay attention to the word "sexually immoral" as it is explained in the book of Leviticus, ( Book of sexual morality) homosexuality is one of the particular sins.
Your comment is flawed, you have no idea of what you're talking about...It's not about what you think it's about what God said..😀😀
Hahaha, In Matt 19:5, Jesus affirms man and wife as he quotes God from Gen 2;18, Gen 2:22-24, Mark 10;6-10, 1 Cor 7;2 one man, one woman, For this reason. a MAN shall leave his FATHER and MOTHER to be with his WIFE.
God nor Jesus ever said "for this reason", two men and two women should get married, stop making up falsehoods to justify a lie, God only blessed males and females to become man and wife and are the only ones authorized to have sex with each other Gen 1;27-28.
Your "thinking" is flawed, you ought to read the whole Bible before you go off of "thinking" what it says. cause you are so very wrong...😊😊
@@armymanssg508 you’ll find that a few of the original scriptures got mistranslated. Idk if you’ve ever taken an alternative language class, but you’d know that some languages don’t directly translate everything to English smoothly. If you research it yourself and not just take other people’s word for it, you may see some interesting stuff. I know you might not learn to read Hebrew lol, but at least look up these scriptures that you’re using to “teach” others with. It’s interesting to see people be so smug about what they believe God has said. And I can’t blame you for trusting the translation you have. I have for years. But you gotta understand who translated it and under what circumstances. Many of the translations were made in the times when church officials were taking advantage of their power in gross ways(that might not make sense now, but after you research it might).
I love this, I study a lot of bibles out of boredom thank you so much
Hahah did you study the part where Jesus quotes God from Gen 2;18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10;6-9, in Matt 19;5 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife; what Gid has put together let no mankind take apart?
Seems like studied wrong.😊
@@armymanssg508 Oh, you mean where Jesus was asked a specific question about divorce, in terms of the curse placed upon women? When he brings up Creation and what ADAM said concerning no one taking HIS wife? Yeah, Jesus is saying no divorce, your point?
Matt 19: 9, I say unto you. Whosoever divorces his wife, except for "immorality" (cheating) and marries another woman commits adultery. That means if "Infidelity" has happened in your marriage such as your wife has slept with another man or your husband has slept with another woman you can divorce them.
1 Cor 7;15, But if the unbelieving, leaves let it be so. There are only two instances where Yeshua (Jesus) allows divorce... Gen 2;23, And Adam said; this now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was "taken" out of man.
Adam never said anything about no one taking his wife there was still only just the two of them Adam was way more concerned about what had happened and life just got a whole lot harder, and Eve was thinking the same thing.
Got it now?...😊😊
@@armymanssg508 Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Your Bible completely rewords. No doubt a Puritan rewrite. "Except" is the exception. Meaning divorce is ONLY allowed in the case of "fornication". In your Bible it is saying the exception is "immorality", which is absolute nonsense. And "cheating" IS adultery.
1 Cor 6 details fornication as sexual idolatry, in that it shows a man defiling his body(the temple of God) with a harlot(female). The patron goddess of the city of Corinth was Aphrodite, who was infamously worshipped through prostitution.
So yes, a man is able to divorce a woman if it be found out that she sexually worships another deity. You ever read the story of King Solomon and his "strange wives"?
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Adam did say this, and it is referring to his sons if they are to want a wife, it can't be his, because they are one flesh.
Got it now?... O.o
Wrong, there are 3 instances where Yeshua allows divorce one being adultery (unfaithful/fornication) Matt 19;9, two unbelieving spouses 1 Cor 7;15, three abandonment or death. Fornication is having sex with someone you are not married to which is also a sexually immoral sin the same as adultery.
In Gen 2:22-24 Adam was not referring to his sons cause they were not born yet, and he didn't know the gender of the children they were going to have.
Do you "got it" now?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. So do you believe that God blesses same sex marriage?
Hahah what about what is written in Rom 2;24-28?
Circumcision?
Good analysis. My interest was piqued by the article you mention a few days ago. Sola scriptura, IMHO, is a major breakdown in our cultural cohabitation. Especially if you aren't willing to invest in the contextual implications/intent. The Christ message was simple and people really make it complicated for lots of different reasons. Thanks for your thought on the german and French approach to grappling with text.
Thanks. Translation is a delicate art that deserves a great deal of attention but if we lose sight of the larger narrative that grounds the way of Jesus our translation efforts won't help us actually follow him.
Sola escriptura is heresy and the reason why everyone feels the right to distort and interpret the bible their own way.
(original sources rule the translation)...where does the word come from, Paul used the Greek to preach to the gentiles, in the Septuagint in Leviticus 18.22/20.13 (some of the clobber passages) the word for male is "arsenos" and the greek for lie with is "koitas" so "arsenos koitas" so the meaning is clear (like the scholar said it is two men in bed and they ain't eating crackers)
that is only one possible interpretation, and one that in recent history has proven itself false by the horrific damage it has done.
a word has connotations. if I said "the teacher gave a talk to the class" vs "the teacher gave the class a talking to", the words are almost the same, the denotation is the same, but the connotations are considerably different.
we don't know what connotations were in Paul's mind when he was using the word. did he believe every possible case of two men in bed was inherently wrong? or was he looking at the damage done to youth by predatory relationships? or perhaps the way slaivs were misused for this purpose?
and all this is assuming that the word even refers to two men in bed, of which there is no guarantee. the best we can say is that it is some kind of unacceptably hurtful secsual practice involving at least one male.
Extremely WELL SAID! One is missing the real point of the Bible and Christianity entirely by reading the Bible as a "rule book". It should instead be read focusing the overall concept of what Christ wants us to be, and that is His loving, compassionate family genuinely loving and caring for each other and earnestly loving Him as our compassionate and loving father, savior and very best friend of all time. He loves us unconditionally and He wants us to love each other the same way. Remember, the Bible says in numerous places that one cannot earn his way into Heaven regardless of how many good things he does here on earth or how many rules he obeys. The ONLY way into Heaven is through one's faith in Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as his personal savior. Truly good works - that is works that are done out of genuine compassion and love for others - will indeed be rewarded in Heaven, but they will not get you there.
Interesting perspective.
But for followers of Jesus - NOT the usurper Paul and his Pauline Sect, what did Jesus teach about same sex relationships?
Yo is that swaggy jesus?
lol
Jail 💀
LOVE this so much! I wish we as Christians would actually think for ourselves and do the research instead of just believing someone else’s interpretation on a text. As long as you believe that Jesus is Lord, He died on the cross, rose from the grave, and is coming back YOU. ARE. SAVED! So much fighting and exclusion going on in the effort to be “right” and prove others are wrong. I pray for that the eyes of our understanding would be opened before our Lord returns!
Well, it’s because your last statement is wrong, that makes this topic so important. Jesus said “you shall love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself, on these two hang all the law and the prophets.” How do we love God? Jesus said “If you love me, obey my commandments. Then you will abide in my love as I abide in the father’s love.” So you see how Salvation is not merely from hell but from sin. As the angel Gabriel told Mary when Jesus was born “call his name Jesus (God’s Salvation) for he shall save his people from their sins.”
So we must also work out our Salvation with fear and trembling, and we cannot do that without knowing exactly what the commandments of God are, and the will of the father.
So obviously we SHOULD exclude sin and anyone else who encourages transgressing the law of God. The question is...
IS homosexuality a SIN???
So as long as I believe in Jesus I can do whatever I like and be saved?
There is more then that. The demons know this thing. They know who God is they live with him. A believer not only believes but has a relationship with Jesus. Knowing of his existence is not going to cut it, but trusting in him AND HIS WORD is want a believer is. Read Roman, while read the gospels and Paul’s letters and pray to God for wisdom.
Steve: We should do the research instead of just believing someone's interpretation.
Also Steve: ::believes someone's interpretation::
@@timwebster833 no
So you’re saying people didn’t understand the Bible until now?
But what about the age difference we think of a man now as in adult age but back in the day 13 was considered being a man back in the day
There are so many southern churches that need to hear you man.
TYSM I just came out and my parents are very very christian and forbid homosexuality so I wanted comfort and I saw you ty for making me feel like I’m not wrong
Grace and peace.
Roman's 1:26-28
@@sonovgodz3902 Romans 1 is not about gays. That wouldn't even make sense in Paul's argument. Paul is trying to say all gentiles are sinners, so why would he pick on the ~3% of gay population to prove that 100% are sinners? Go look up what the ancient Romans were up to and then you'll appreciate Paul's real argument.
@@MusicalRaichu "why would he pick on the 3% of gays" whatt??? That's like saying why would he pick on the 5% that are murderers??? Like you said, he's calling out the gentiles on sin. And you have the mindset that he's picking on them. No, he's calling put sins. Plain and sinple
@@sonovgodz3902 Yes I see what you mean. What I'm trying to say is that Paul is making an argument that the gentiles of his time were sinners in a way that would convince his readers. He's talking about the majority of gentiles who at the time were indeed engaging in same-sex activities.
The Romans did not think in terms of sexual orientation but in terms of active and passive roles. Male Roman citizens had sex with anyone of lower status, male or female. The act was seen as boosting the man's masculinity while denigrating the passive partner. Married men regularly went to male prostitutes, abused male and female slaves and some even had sex with boys. And this is the majority of men, people we would consider heterosexual today, not just a tiny minority of people with same-sex orientation.
Go read up on Roman sexuality and you'll see that Paul's description fits it perfectly. His description fails to describe same-sex relationships based on sexual orientation, and certainly not mutually respectful ones. Romans 1 simply does not apply to the modern notion of homosexuality.
Technically, this doesn't make gay relationships right. It just means that Romans 1 cannot be used to condemn it.
Great video
So what is the main message of this video
That sometimes issues are complex and we need to learn to think critically and live with grace.
@D He's talking about understanding the Bible as a collection of documents written by real people in actual historical situations trying to present a culturally relevant message to their intended audience. Using the Bible as a set of prooftexts to support one's own ideology is the real twisting because it's ignoring what the author was actually trying to say.
@D huh!?
This guy smooth talks people and complex language to basically say anything goes. It doesn't matter its all love. I encourage any serious Christian to be careful with the message of this video. Jesus didn't condemn people but still condemned sin. He told the adulteress to go and sin no more
@D Most definitely. Or what is adultery??
Let us remember those who have died for justice; for they have given us life.
Help us love even those who hate us; so we can change the world.
- César Chávez
God knew me before he formed me in womb so I can’t understand why I’m a abomination cause god forms the brain too before birth
You have never been anything less than beloved by God.
2 Timothy 4:3, NLT: "For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear." I've heard this following argument against the Bible and its authority: "The Bible is out of date for today's modern world." But..the real question is "Is the modern world out of date with the Bible?"
The answer is quite obvious, both sentences are correct, because we can't apply everything in the Bible to our modern world and vice versa.
The people in the past understood many words in the Bible, different than the people today.
So we need to understand how the people in past thought and what their definition of many words were.
All these arguments about a few words, attempting to justify lifestyles contrary to God. Using the old context and history and words definition arguments. Jesus clearly said a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife. The entire Bible from start to finish features men marrying women and both parties remaining chaste before so.
When God created a helper, a marriage partner, it was a woman. And in the book of Daniel, there's an oddity the vast majority of Christians don't know. That the coming antichrist will have "no affinity for women", showing clearly it's an aberration.
We all have sins, desires and tendencies we need to counteract and repent of and I'm no exception. But I'm not going to twist scriptures and justify things that are not Godly.
@@tomy8339 okay so using context for understanding is a bad thing, also many don't know that God is against democracy. And "no affinity for woman"?
That could also mean that he's asexual.
You see the bible is not the Quran, context and understanding about how words work is quite important.
@@strix5673 As I said, what did Jesus say about marriage? Who did God provide a marriage partner for Adam? And where is there acknowledgement of a single same sex couple in the Bible? Could not Romans 1 be any clearer? Men doing with men what is abominable? And women likewise exchanging the natural use of men for one another? What does Paul say are the qualifications of an elder? Amongst others things, husband of one wife. The parable of the 10 virgins as Jesus spoke. Men marrying women.
You talk about context, there it is. Context, from Genesis to Revelation. Every instance of marriage between humans, men marrying women. Please don't come here and attempt to cast doubt upon what the scriptures are crystal clear about.
@@tomy8339 so you're a hypocrite, doesn't surprise me, it's pretty normal for homophobes to be hypocrites.
First Jesus and marriage, you totally miss the message of this explanation, not surprising at all, because you don't understand how context works.
Read the entire chapter, Jesus refering to divorce, because he was asked a direct question about divorce.
Secondly Romans 1, again read the entire chapter, Paul isn't refering to Homosexuality, he's referring to worshiping idols, he literally describes this.
But acknowledging this means you cannot cherry picking.
If you know the scriptures so good as you claim, you should know that a sin is only a sin when it's written in the law.
Where's the law against love or marriage?
Besides that it's extremely amusing that you bring Romans 1 up, because this part is perfectly displaying that it isn't about Homosexuality. Do you know what Homosexuality is? Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't bring this part up, because that would make Paul to a liar, because what he describes doesn't reflect reality.
It's really a shame that people twisting the scriptures, so they can justify their wish to look down on others.
Good review of important points to consider,...the 'cultural narrative' and how we can faclitate the Jesus 'ethic of love' in all relationships.
Would you consider yourself to be a good person?
How many lies have you told, and what do you call someone who lies? Have you ever stolen something, and what do you call someone who steals? Have you ever taken God’s name in vain (very serious; in Old Testament times, the Jews wouldn’t even say the name of God for fear of blasphemy) - even ‘OMG’? One more: Jesus said whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart; have you ever looked with lust?
Well I’m not judging you - but if you’ve done these things then you’re a liar, thief, blasphemer and adulterer-at-heart; that’s how seriously God takes sin. He is Holy (perfectly good/righteous and separate from sin) which means that H e is perfect in justice - and if He were to judge you by the moral law (we’ve already looked at 4 commandments) would you be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? The answer is hell - the wrath of God upon you for your sin. Is that concerning?
But fortunately, God’s will is not that you perish. He wants all men everywhere to be saved. So do you know what He did for us guilty sinners? In self-giving mercy, He sent His Son Jesus Christ. He lived the perfect life that we should have lived - tempted at all points and yet He NEVER sinned. Through His life, being in very nature God, He revealed God to men; but we in our hatred condemned Him to death. On that cross as Jesus suffered, He took on the sin of the world and was judged in our place; receiving God’s wrath. You and I broke God’s law, but Jesus paid the fine. God can justly forgive us.
On that cross He died, then He was buried, but 3 days later He was raised from the dead - conquering death and Hell and ushering in The Kingdom of God. He then ascended to the right hand of God the Father (where He came from) now Lord of the living and the dead. God has fixed a date when He will judge the world in righteousness. What you need to do is repent (In humility, acknowledge your sin before God and turn to a relationship with Him) and trust ALONE in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross; and God will grant you the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then be baptised.
When you place your trust in Jesus - the Lord and Saviour - these things will happen:
1) God will forgive the sins that you have committed; they were paid for by Jesus at the cross.
2) The perfect life that Jesus lived will be credited to you. He will find you holy and blameless on judgement day (and now), as Christ’s righteousness covers you.
3) You receive a place in Christ’s kingdom as an adopted child of God. God becomes your Father. Eternal life isn’t just about living forever, but a personal relationship with God Himself. That life can start now; The Father will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him.
4) God doesn’t just save you from the penalty of your sin (Hell). He can save you from the power of sin itself. Whoever practices sin is a slave of sin; but when you repent and believe the gospel [WHICH HAS BEEN DESCRIBED] the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in you and sanctify you (working in you to further abandon sin and turn to the will of God). When the end of the age comes, and eternity begins, this work will be brought to completion as you are finally freed from the presence of sin.
Jesus offers to take away your sin and to give you His righteousness; you must receive it by faith. Choose this day if you will align with the world, or with Jesus and His kingdom - only His is eternal.
ROMANS 10:9 - If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
EPHESIANS 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no-one may boast
@@michaal105 Question, if you really believe God would torture people for ETERNITY in hell for a white lie, why would you worship that God?
@@commonschurch My friend God doesn't change based on what you want him to be. He's God - He is who He is and not what you think him up to be.
Taking the parts of the God of the Bible you like while ignoring the parts you don't is idolatry. You need to repent of that.
And God doesn't like that people will be going to hell. He is the judge, but people are the ones who sin and send themselves to hell. God's not responsible. You are
@@michaal105 Man, this guy is straight out of Satan’s yard... spewing lies and twisting scripture. His response to you was full on Jehovah’s Witness doctrine
@@commonschurch Because God is just. If a man assaulted a woman, we would expect his violation of that law to be addressed with punishment. Violation of God’s law is called sin. Jesus came to redeem us from this. To suggest God wouldn’t make good on His promise to deliver judgement invalidates a ton of scripture, makes Jesus’s sacrifice pointless, and it leads people astray. What you said is exactly what Jehovah’s witnesses say.
I suggest if you are going to teach, back it with scripture instead of your own twisting of scripture and evil ideas.
Here’s some SCRIPTURE, to show where Jesus Himself taught about punishment in Hell:
🍇The whole chapter of Luke 16
🍇And throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 13:50
🍇““Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;”
Matthew 25:41
🍇“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.””
Matthew 25:46
🍇“These people will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,”
2 Thessalonians 1:9
The original Greek and Hebrew is very clear. Let's take Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it's an abomination" . In the video you said זָכָ֔ר "za-kar" for male, so we know that yes it is a Man not a boy. Further on it says: לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה "lo tis-kab mis-ke-be is-sah tow e-bah" The literal translation is: " And with a male not You shall lie as with a woman, [is] an abomination".
They key word is "lie with" תִּשְׁכַּ֥ב "tis-kab". This same word is used as the cultural expression of "to sleep with" or "to have sex with". The next verse uses the same word speaking of how it is defiling to "lie with" or "have sex with" an animal.
My point is, the actual word "homosexual" may not have be used but let's not lose sight of what is clearly being said. It clearly is saying Men should not have sex with other men as they do with women because it is an abomination. Romans 16:26 says: "It has been made clear through the writings of the prophets. And by the command of the eternal God it is made known to all nations that they might believe and obey."
This is clear, Men having sex with other men is an abomination. All things abominable or people that CONTINUE to practice such things have no place in the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ saves us from ALL sin, even homosexuality, but we must have a repentant heart and TURN from any and all sin. We all make mistakes and we give in to the desires of our flesh but we must turn from it and ask God to give us strength so that we may obey.
Redefining the God-inspired scripture is idolatry because a person choses what and what not to take and worships their own man-made god, better suiting their own interests, despite the clear and evident warnings that were given to us.
As I've replied to others here, if God was totally against same-sex acts Leviticus would say "men don't sleep with men, women don't lie with women". Instead, there is no restriction on women and the prohibition on men is more specific, i.e. if two men want to do it, they can't do it in the way a man does it with a woman. There are several theories as to what that might mean, but at least it's clear that Leviticus is not consistent with the idea that God is against all same-sex acts.
In any case, it is dubious to take something aimed at another culture in another age let alone under a different covenant which no longer applies, and apply it word for word to our modern situation. Jesus gave us "a new commandment" and all our attempts at working out a morality should be assessed in that light.
@@MusicalRaichu And what about Romans 1:24-27 ?
@@pandakawaiidebby890 In Romans 1, Paul is arguing that gentiles were sinners, and obviously he's talking about the gentiles of his day. Their attitudes to sexuality were so different to today that it can be quite misleading taking a description of that and interpreting it in the light of modern views of sexuality.
Instead of classifying people as gay/straight, they thought in terms of penetrator/penetrated. Men of higher social status were penetrators and women as well as men of lower status were penetrated. Penetrators were seen as dominating, deriving pleasure from and denigrating the penetrated. So male citizens (in modern terms we would call heterosexual) would do it with male prostitutes, boys, and (in modern terms we would say sexually abuse) male and female slaves just for fun and to boost their own sense of masculinity. Paul was right to criticize what they were doing.
If you look at it closely phrase by phrase, Romans 1 aptly describes what was happening in Rome. However, it fails to describe mutually respectful, caring same-sex relationships based on sexual orientation. Think about a boy raised in a Christian home accepting the faith but reaching puberty only to find he's gay. How does Romans 1 describe him? He hasn't worshipped idols, abandoned heterosexual relationships (it was never an option for him), gotten inflamed with lust, or gotten filled with various evils. Nothing in that chapter fits, does it?
@@MusicalRaichu Thank you for your answer.
But help to understand, what do you mean by same-sex relationship. To which extend do you refer to it? The same as a opposite-sex relationship or is it different in any ways?
@@pandakawaiidebby890 I'm not gay so I don't know the what a same-sex relationships is like. Then again, if you ask someone who's gay, they won't know what an opposite-sex relationships is like.
My guess is that they're the same. Most people reach puberty and find themselves attracted to the opposite sex but a few to the same sex. That's probably the main difference.
Other than that, they experience companionship, intimacy, building a life together etc. the same way. Or they can be promiscuous or abusive or unfaithful the same way.
Keep preaching the truth! The devil wants to confuse and tear apart, thank you for shedding light to show we should LOVE each other!
That's what he's doing. trying to ok something that is clearly condemned jn the bible.
@@LuisRamirez-vv4dk no
@@devanplays3509 Yeah thats what hes doing.
If hes oking homoseuxality. Hes not spreading the truth
@@LuisRamirez-vv4dk What's wrong with that? His informing us about the misconceptions of homosexuality in the Bible. Don't act as if you personally wrote the Bible, it can be interpreted in many ways.
Thank you this was exactly what i needed but homosexual poeple dont get it but this is very helpful and now im educated
Wait but, I thought the original word that Arsenokoite was translated to in English (since the term "homosexuality" did not exist back then) was "abusers of themselves with mankind." Either that or "sodomite." Did it really say "boy-molesters?"
It depends on what translation you are looking at. The English translations tended toward abusers of themselves, the German, Swedish and Norwegian translations tended toward abusers of boys.
I'm going to agree with you, as I don't see how "boy-molester" came into the picture. KJV Bible uses the descriptive of a "sodomite"(one who defiles/abuses self with mankind). But it also has sodomite defined as a "male temple prostitute". The closest thing I see that relates to boy's and sex, is the descriptive used for a "catamite"(effeminate), which were boys kept for sexual purposes, either for personal use, or to entertain guests.
But either way, "homosexuality" isn't what was being condemned. The Bible condemned idolatry in all forms, but "whoredom" to false gods was a predominant issue back then.
Yup, totally confusing, haha. And remember when Abusers-of-themselves -with-mankind meant masturbation? And NOW it "means" homosexuality"???
The church traumatized me with this shit.
Right? Same here. I can't even get a job because where I'm from, we're not treated as human beings.
@@ronneff5894 In that sense the church must not have male members because Jesus is male. lol The fact that the church is considered feminine and there are male members, well, that already sounds queer to me. HAHA. Go on spreading hate, Ron. Let's see if you can get to heaven with that. lol
@@MichaelTheophilus906 I'm not. Lol. I'm quite talking sensibly here, with hints of sarcasm. Clearly, you're the one accusing me, which is Satanic because Satan is the accuser. And you're clearly lying. Lol. I can feel your indifference and hate reeking. Grow up, Michael. Know that the world is not always about yall heteros.
I’m sorry. Grace and peace.
@@brightskysyl3913 if you read the Bible everyone who are believers is the church. Male or female,Jew or Greek .Marriage is a picture of our relationship with Jesus. When you look a Jewish weddings you can heavily see the similarities. Like bride price is a picture of why Jesus dead and only the father knows when the day of the wedding is. Read how Jesus talked about marriage and Paul’s letters and you will see the marriage is a form of worship and something not to be taken light. Marriage is another way for God to teach us about spiritual thing that we can’t fully understand. And believers are not to hate, but love our enemies. So just because we don’t support the lgbtq+ community does not mean we hate them. Jesus love does while we where sinners. I think you are getting disagreeing and hate mix up. And not understanding marriage is going to be a lot of people’s down fall.
I am a follower of Jesus, and a HUGE Bible nerd, and also a very proud gay man. Though, for a long time I was mostly uncomfortable even approaching these passages, but listening to what you had to say really helped me and really developed my faith in God. I was questioning whether or not I should be celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven because I trust God and I trust that He loves me more than I love myself, so that He has my best interests in mind. But what you are talking about makes WAY more theological sense. So I thank you for helping me clear up some of the misconceptions I had on this topic, and really solidifying my views as an affirming follower of Jesus :3
Here's a video that might help. It approaches the topic from the point of view of someone who is gay themselves and seeks to follow Jesus.
czcams.com/video/zW5ZZtdziwU/video.html
Better to marry than to burn with lust. If you join with your soulmate, be blessed.
You meant Naomi Wolf
So being gay is not a sin???
No cuz The word homosexual was never in the bible. It was only in the bible after 1947. The original word translates to pedophile.
If being gay was as big of a deal to God or Jesus as many Christians portray, it'd be a huge oversight not to include it. The English translations of the Bible have been "tainted" over time due to the simple fact that they are translated.
Even if someone maintains that the Bible is the final authority and the Word of God, those manuscripts have been examined and changed by humans, meaning these translations are not immune to the bias and imperfection of humans.
Judging by cultural context, homosexuality was most likely not condemned (as we know it today--two consenting adults wanting to be in a loving monogamous relationship).
Howlin Mad what verses?
The Dead Sea Scrolls do show remarkable consistency with the Masoretic texts (10th C AD) which our English Old Testament is translated from so they are an important discovery in text critical studies but they are unrelated to the Christian New Testament.
@@cmgoodrich2093 u seem to not know how we got the bible
Even though Christianity teaches brotherly Love as Jesus did, most Christians are often judgmental towards those who don't share the same beliefs or who are simply different, and most Christians often don't recognize the hypocritical nature of their judgments.
In this way, Satan (the Ego) has corrupted Christianity, and most Christians don't seem to recognize this or try to correct this.
Instead, most Christians tend to fuel a sense of self-righteousness and superiority within themselves that too often leads to conflict with those who don't agree with them.
That is not what Jesus taught!
Jesus taught: Love your neighbor as yourself.
No exceptions!
Jesus didn't say: Love your neighbor only if he or she is like you, or Love your neighbor only if he or she is Christian, or Love your neighbor only if he or she is heterosexual.
Jesus taught that our neighbor is not different than us, that everyone is the same in the eyes of God, that everyone is God made flesh and that the same kingdom of heaven is within everyone.
Jesus had no intention of creating a religion, and Jesus was not involved in creating Christianity, and yet... a religion was created in Jesus' name.
I just want to clarify this to those for whom Jesus' name and Christianity... seem one and the same.
When Jesus took on this mission, he knew this would happen.
Jesus knew that his teachings would be misused and misunderstood.
The bible never said that we are God except for in genesis but with that it was referring to the fact that we had the ability to now gain knowledge of right and wrong plus the only bible that said we are God is the one for the church of satan which is a satanic cult
@@jaycesmith6425:
When i said that everyone is God, i meant: everyone is a manifestation of God, just as Jesus is too.
Sadly, Christians may have missed the very boat their savior sailed away on. They just did not get it. If they had truly followed what he taught, the world would be over populated with the millions of people who did Not get murdered in his name. But millions did die in his name. So sad.
I am I. I am that I am. We ain't this body...what we are is G-d having a human experience. When you realize that the Heavenly Father Jesus referred to is your higher self, then you will also know I am that I am. Then you are born again. Jesus was mocked when he tried to tell people this. His flesh was not G-d, but the Father in him, His higher self was G-d. My higher self, your higher self and Jesus's higher self is exactly the same being. But we are not the same on this earth. That we are this body is an illusion to those who don't have eyes to see.
@@edgarmorales4476 can you explain more? You meant we all have a cup of God instead of us
I understand what you are saying however there are over 150,000 mistranslations in the kjv. It is very important to examine the Hebrew and Greek to correct those translations. I just finished translating The English Reformation Bible which goes to print t later this year. So I do agree with a lot from what you said but not on that.
I have a question. adam and eve has 2 sons how old was eve when she became pregnant for her son as they had no daughter. As for homosexuality it's plain to see with the 12 apostals all men so jesus was gay.
i loved this explanation! im finding that the bible is actually really complicated and deep as a person who is questioning their religion. hopefully my parents understand lol :) (they/he)
The Bible is a profound collection if we allow it to speak. Glad you found this video. Grace and peace.
Please don’t question the religion question the sinful ideas Satan puts in your head over come it with Christ especially Catholicism and try to pray the rosary every day
Why did you say they?
This guy smooth talks people and uses complex language to manipulate and basically say tell you anything goes, that's all he's driving at. He cares nothing about the truth or the gospel or holiness. He says "It doesn't matter its all love" that's so simplistic and we know that love has different snd deeper meanings in scriptures. Love does not support and is proud of sin.
I encourage any serious Christian to be careful with the message of this video. Jesus didn't condemn people but still condemned sin. He told the adulteress to go and sin no more after rescuing her from death
Amen. This stuff is heretical
You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV. Should spread fallacies
arsenokoitai < it's really that simple
I don't read kjv Bible nor the newer versions I read Geneva Bible and Wycliffe and I listen to their audio on CZcams . They're before kjv Bible and they don't talk about homosexuality
I grew up being taught that homosexuality is a sin and something evil, I believed it as I thought that is what the bible taught. However I never really understood why it would be evil and sinful, especially as its still about two people loving each other deeply and it not hurting anyone. Recently a christian whom I have followed for years has made a discovering. She has noticed that it is not the fact that the same gender love each other and get married is the sin, but the fact that fornification is a sin whether it is a homosexual or heterosexual relationship. That is starting to make sense to me considering that gay marriage has only been a thing for the last few years. I am not 100% sure yet, but I must admit I am hoping that's the case because I really don't see two people loving each other romantically as a bad thing. I am willing to learn on this subject and be open minded but at the same time pray on it and put Jesus first.
God made woman for man
do not be deceive my friend, from the very beginning God made them male and female, Jesus reaffirm in Matthew 19 :5 and mark 10 what its should be like from the start, sugar coat it all you want, its better to obey the word of God. bend over a man and a woman and you will see only one can receive a man, the other is unnatural and is an abomination should a man try to go there. If God through the scripture written by his holy men say its wrong, don't try to reason it out, accept it and move on.
Romans 1:27-And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
John 8:44-You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
The context of Romans 1 is idolatry and lust. Paul was condemning the gentiles for worshipping false idols so excessively that they started breaking their traditions and having lustful sex with the same gender. He never once said it was a sin to marry the same gender.
@@bawbjusbawb6471 No you're wrong. Yahweh said it and that settles it.
@@AlexRodriguez-kl9qm Please stop. You embarrass yourself. If you want to create your own religion where blasphemy is acceptable, then go ahead. This is what you are doing when you cherry pick to make scripture say what you want it to. You have created your own God. You break the 1st Commandment. Repent. I'll humor you no more, but pray that you are not given up to your own reprobate mind.
@@bawbjusbawb6471 I'll pray for you. It's really sad to see people like you twisting the Bible to fit your prejudice narratives. You've violated the 1st commandment not me.
@@bawbjusbawb6471 people don't want truth nowadays they want to be rock to sleep by there sin
The hebrew translation is “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.” the word "lieth" means to lay with someone usually on a bed but for Sexual purposes. Look it up for yourself always and ask God for guidance always.
Yes it says if a man lies with a male as with a woman. That fits well with homosexuality being alive and well, and just a particular practice being regulated. Of course to assess the applicability of that regulation today, you need understand why it was regulated, why there was such a strong cultural taboo about that way of doing it, and whether the same implication would be drawn today.
You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV. Should do historic research
The bible is just a book, written by ancient men who had thoughts about a god and they wrote them down and unfortunately everyone took their thoughts way too seriously.
In the Book do Roman’s Paul calls homosexuality an “unnatural relation”. Pretty clear as day.
Well, the whole question is whether he as talking about homosexuality (as we understand it today) in that passage. That’s what the video is about 🤷♂️
He didn't call homosexuality that, he called whoredom to false gods that. Read up in Psalms 106, Paul is literally talking about the history of his own people, who were given the gospel first, and the commandments long before that. In Genesis 18, Sarah specifically refers to her ability to bare children as being the nature of a woman, in that she no longer had it. Romans 1 says they gave up the nature of a woman. Psalms 106 says they were committing whoredom to false gods and even sacrificing their children to them. There is a reason it says men and women worked together amongst themselves, because just as Leviticus 18 says, these sodomites were having sex with anyone and everything, out of their worship to their gods. In fact, throughout the whole Bible, this worship of false gods, sexual or not, was condemned as a whole. They literally coined one of the words used for "hell" from a valley that was notorious for being a place of worship unto the Canaanite god Molech(also referred to as the "shame of kings", referring to the fact that Israel's kings promoted the worship of this deity throughout their history). Molech was a bull god of fire, and one of the forms of worship was to toss things into fires on its altar, to include people(especially children). It would make sense to have a punishment being an eye for an eye, that such a sin be dealt with by an eternal fire that would destroy even their soul, hence such blasphemy being unforgivable.
Misinterpretation of the Greek.
Αρσενοκοίτης doesn't imply "boy molesting."
The Septuagint version of Leviticus translates 18:22 as "και μετά ΆΡΣΕΝΟΣ ου ΚΟΙΜΗΘΉΣΗ..."
Those words in caps are the words from which we get the word αρσενοκοίτης.
Paul is using a term that is believed to have been coined from THIS verse in the Spetuagint! Not from use within the Greco-Roman world.
If Paul wanted to say "boy molesters" he would have. If they were talking about "boy molesting" in Leviticus they would have used the Hebrew words נער or ילד, NOT זכר.
Out of all the texts within the Bible, these are among the MOST clear.
I mean that's what the video basically says when it comes to the linguistics 🤷♂️
The bigger question is what we should do with those verses in our current cultural moment.
Leviticus is about a man not taking a woman's role. The wording fails to be a prohibition of all same-sex activity. The reason why it's wrong is explicitly stated as something cultural related to idolatrous practices.
Paul may have been thinking of Leviticus when saying that, but then again it might be coincidental. Leviticus talks about some sexual sin involving males and 1 Corinthians talks about some sexual sin involving males. Obviously the words "male" and "going to bed" are going to crop up. When the two things are centuries apart in totally different cultures and arguably different continents, I think it's difficult to justify linking them without direct historical evidence.
Plus I'm not sure why you think it doesn't imply pederasty. It was practised at the time and involves males having sex. Unless you mean it implies more than just pederasty? Sure, add raping slaves and use of prostitutes (some of which were slaves forced into it), all bad stuff. If that was Paul's experience with same-sex practices, no wonder he spoke against it.
@@MusicalRaichu It is not about a man taking on a woman's role. I read Hebrew.
The verse says:
ואת זכר לא תשכב
Which literally means "You shall not lie with a male."
"With" - את
"male" - זכר
"not" - לא
"you shall lie" - תשכב
The next part:
משכבי אשה
משכבי refers to the place one lies down on, but it is used euphemistically to mean "lying with." Therefore it should be translated as "as lying with a woman" NOT "lying as if they were a woman" - that would be a whole different construction.
Evidence:
Numbers 31:17 "...every woman who has known a male/man by lying with him" - למשכב זכר
Judges 21:12 "...virgins who had not known a man by lying with him (literally "male") - למשכב זכר
Rashi specifically notes משכבי אשה means מכנוס כמכחול בשפופרת which is to say it means something like "inserts as a paintbrush into a tube." Certainly not the roll of a woman, usually.
Ibn Ezra has accepted this also as referring to homosexual intercourse in general, saying that it is forbidden here (Lev. 18:22) in both the standard and nonstandard way.
It is not wise to say that some homosexual activity is permitted because the wording "fails" to list all sexual activities because then the same could be said about the next verse. The next verse is about beastiality and uses words of the same root as the previous (שכבתך and משכב come from the root שכב).
There is also nothing in this chapter that indicates that this was forbidden because of related idolatrous practices. You are likely thinking about other verses that use similar language in ENGLISH. E.g. Deuteronomy 23:17 uses the words קדשה and קדש, which are translated to as "whore" and "sodomite" in the KJV, which may lead to some believing it is about homosexuality when in fact it is referring to cult prostitutes.
I meant that it doesn't imply pederasty exclusively. The word זכר (the word used in the verse) doesn't imply age or an age range.
Ibn Ezra writes: Thus, this commandment applies equally to a pederast and to a catamite.
Midrash Sifra - Kedoshim: Even a minor is implied.
Paul was well educated and, based on his writings, was familiar with classical Greek works, he would have therefore been familiar with a word like πεδεραστία which refers directly to pederasty. It makes little sense for him to use such a general word like αρσενοκοίτης when he could avoid confusion and use a Greek word that would have been well known in a world where pederasty was common.
The Septuagint (LXX) was written in Koiné Greek, EXTREMELY similar to the language of the New Testament. The term αρσενοκοίτης, the word Paul used, is rare and believed to have been coined DUE DIRECTLY to its use in the Septuagint. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament were very familiar with the LXX and would quote directly from it in their writings.
I wasn't just linking them, the link between them has been studied extensively.
The rarity of this word outside of Judeo-Christian contexts makes it harder to link it anything else, especially some supposed practice the Corinthians may have engaged in.
@@Caralaza sorry, i can't make sense of what you're trying to say about lev 18. the two interpretations of lev 18 i've seen are "do not lie with a male [as you] bed a woman" (most translations) or "do not lie with a male [in] a woman's bed".
the first would mean when you do it with a man, he should not take a woman's role, i.e. don't penetrate a man. the second would mean when you have your gay lover over, do it on your bed, not your wife's.
sorry i didn't explain, the reason stated for the prohibition is because it's "detestable", the word for which in the Pentateuch (and up to Kings) is specifically associated with practices of idolatrous nations and most often with idolatry itself. (In Proverbs it takes on a different nuance.) It's not inherently immoral, it is only cultural associations that make it an issue.
about pederasty, that's what i was saying. if it was only pederasty he was concerned about, he could have said so. but the lustful/exploitative practices of the time extended to beyond pederasty, so probably he used the word he did to include them all. or it could be taken more literally, those practising masculine sex (ie the masculine ideal in that culture), which would extend its meaning to those who exploit women as well as boys etc. or it could be paired with malakoi (men who are promiscuous with women) to mean men who are promiscuous with men or even women who are promiscuous with men.
as for your preferred interpretation, "believed to be based" means it's not conclusive. you should not base your morality on likelihoods and theories.
@@MusicalRaichu The second interpretation ("...in a woman's bed") is a somewhat literal interpretation since משכב refers to a place where one lays. However, the construct משכבי אשה makes it clear that this is a euphemism, since it is not used in this way elsewhere to mean "bed."
I gave those examples to show that this construction refers to "laying with" rather than "a bed."
If one wanted to say "in a woman's bed" the construction should be more like על משכב אשה (lit. upon a woman's bed). This is based on evidence (available upon request), not interpretation.
You're reading too deep into a very simple statement. This is why I mentioned the following verse. Lev. 18:23 says not to have intercourse (שכבת) with a beast, yet virtually nobody would argue that this means God permits all other sexual encounters with beasts, so long as they are not penetrative.
Do you believe God is accepting of human-beast sexual relationships so long as they are not penetrating each other?
It is against the Law to lie (שכב) unlawfully with a woman, does that mean that it is lawful for him to sexually do whatever to the woman, so long as it is not penetrative?
Is the way one lies with an אשה different from the way one would lie with a נערה or a בתולה?
There is no deep meaning to "as one lies with a woman," it is simply referring to sexual relations through the normative. It is a very simple and clear verse (one of the clearest) that has been understood for thousands of years.
It is written that a man (איש) shall leave his father and mother and cling to his WIFE (אשתו).
You would think if God were okay with non-penetrative homosexual relations, you would find it mentioned somewhere in the Bible. But no, one has to read something into Scripture that is not there (i.e. "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence *unless it is non-penetrative*")
The term "abomination" תועבה is not restricted to idolatry, even in the Pentateuch. Not all "abominations" were detestable due to their association with idolaters because then that would mean incest, adultery, and beastiality (all mentioned in Lev. 18) are not inherently "bad."
I wrote what I wrote regarding pederasty because you said that you weren't sure about what *I* meant when I wrote that the words זכר and αρσενοκοίτης don't imply pederasty.
I'm not basing my morality on likelihoods. I read the Bible for what it says. It says αρσενοκοίτης in 1 Corinthians which refers to "a male who lies with males." When I said "believed" I was referring to the coinage of the term αρσενοκοίτης itself, not to any moralistic beliefs.
"...or it could be taken more literally, those practising masculine sex (ie the masculine ideal in that culture)"
Αρσενοκοίτης does not mean "masculine sex" literally, it refers to a male who lies with males. I have yet to see it used for anything else.
Paul also had no reason to use it in that way in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as he already mentions: Sexually immoral (πόρνοι), adulterers (μοιχοί), and the effeminate (μαλακοί) *before* mentioning αρσενοκοίται.
Homosexuality still shouldn't be a personality trait.... I don't wanna be defined by who I love...
I don’t know your perspective (if your gay or straight), but the only reason homosexuals are defined by their sexuality is because society didn’t (some still don’t) look to them as normal. If it was normal, it wouldn’t be a big deal, but the sole reason it defines them is because it’s considered different from heterosexuality. The same goes for racism. People identify with their race solely because they’ve faced discrimination or clashing ideologies in their lifetime. If people truly didn’t want to be defined by their race or sexuality, then we would have to end the thought of people being different because of how they look, act, etc, but that is not the case, even if you don’t want to admit it (assuming your coming from the perspective I’m perceiving you to be).
@@jacobbreedlove543 I'm gay af. I just don't think you have to dress, talk, or act "gay" to be gay. The only thing that makes you gay is liking the same sex. By "dressing/talking gay" you tell het people that we're not trying to be normal and it's seen as attention seeking (from an outside perspective). We are normal people trying to just live our lives. The only thing different is who we love, and yet there's still a whole "gay culture" which doesn't really make sense...
You don't have to be gay to like a certain thing, thus you don't have to like a certain thing to be gay. Hell, my dad is a crossdresser and is very straight. For years he thought that since he liked to dress up, that he must be gay because it's "a gay thing". I know that that was what society viewed as gay, and we adopted it, but it's definitely NOT a gay thing and we should say that. Straight women can wear flannels, have short hair, etc. Straight men can crossdress, wear makeup, etc.
My point is, being gay is not a fashion choice. It's not a personality trait and I'm tired of it being used that way. My brother is also gay, and he has this constant pressure to be feminine because of it. He's a normal teenage boy, that just so happens to like boys.
If we want to actually be accepted, then we need to stop being so damn loud, annoying, and weird. No one is going to take a person wrearing a rainbow speedo and rainbow suspenders seriously, and it makes the whole movement look like a joke. In places where we already have rights, we don't need a whole damn parade or month, it just feels like we're (again) trying to get attention, which (again) reflects badly on us. Pride parades in places where being gay is illegal, sure, I 100% support that. But if you keep complaining where you already have rights, it's just going to make others annoyed, no? We need to show people that we're not annoying or want everything our way. We don't want to stand out, we just wanna love who we love.
Being gay can be part of your personality and still not define you. It's not your personality that defines you, it's your relationship to Jesus. No matter what your sexuality is, it doesn't have to define you if you don't want it to, that goes for all your personality traits. But I encourage you, no matter what your sexuality may be, to identify with Jesus, and to live with love as Jesus did :3
@@itsthatonechickagaincallth7843 We can love anyone,but we cannot sex the same gender...sex is to produce baby
The word "homosexual" is an English word so of course it wasn't in the original bible. The word that was translated is "Arsenokoitai" It does not translate to "pedophile" it translates to man bedding with man. That sounds like a homosexual to me.
If you get a chance to watch the video, we talk about the translation of arsenokoitai
In fact, the title of the video is about whether arsenokoitai has always been translated the way it is today.
It does not translate to man bedding with man. It translate to man and beds. That sounds like prostitution to me. And given the context of all the words in the same verse, has to do with temple prostitution. Hence why scholars attribute it to being the descriptive of a "sodomite", which scholars literally translated the term over the Hebrew word of a "male temple prostitute". Given that Sodom and Gomorrah were cities within the promised land, Leviticus 18 and 20 suggested strongly that they were literally sexually worshipping Molech. In fact, it says they were sacrificing children unto Molech. You read what God says about Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18, and you see that He says there was a great out cry from the cities and their sin was very grievous. The worst sin imaginable, as per the commandment, was blasphemy. But another thing God hated beyond that, was the sacrificing of children to such gods. If you read the story about Cain and Abel, it was Abel's innocent blood that cried out from the earth to God, and also what cursed the land against Cain. Genesis 18 suggests the same thing, and Leviticus 18 details exactly why that was.
So bizarre that god would have given such cryptic language and subject to interpretation. That's more confusing than then not giving anything at all. If there is a god then she should come down and give laws clearly for all to understand.
Only if you have an imagination of Scripture being some form of divine dictation and transcription. If you choose to understand sacred texts as the gathered wisdom of the community collected and redacted over time you can trace movements and narratives that unfold as human history does pointing us toward the ongoing revelation of God.
@@commonschurch Your reply is just as cryptic as the scriptures you follow.
Joseph Scala not taking sides, but, good one.
@@josephscala6707 I tend to agree with this video and I chuckle at some of this guys other replies, but I have to agree this reply was ridiculous!
I don't imagine God can have a sexual orientation.
Lev 20:13 is sufficiently clear that any one who wrests it to his own destruction is without excuse.
If Leviticus is sufficient to shape your sexual ethics I think you will find yourself significant out of step with traditional Jewish or Christian values 😳
@@commonschurch No doubt, and I would hope so. My aim is to please the Creator YHVH.
Its all love but Christ added goodwill and grace, he didn't change the law right? I'm ok to be wrong
The book of Romans is very clear as well. No argument of mistranslation/new vocabulary arising can hold
@@AZ-js4um very true
"Finding new ways to read nuance INTO the Bible is good??? Seriously? Finding and understanding nuances that exist are one thing but adding it where it doesn't exist is NOT good. You missed some significant cultural relevance and nuance of how the Hebrew language works. Surrounding verses (pretext and context) , similar verses and social understanding all play a huge role. Taking "a verse" and examining it by itself is equivalent to taking one sentence out of an entire speech.
As I said in the video the Hebrew is pretty clear forbidding any sexual intercourse between men. Not much nuance there. The issue is that we don’t take our sexual ethics from Leviticus for obvious reasons. And I am totally with you that examining one verse is problematic but that’s the whole point of the video. Proof texting is not helpful. Reading within the larger narrative of Jesus is the goal.
@@commonschurch maybe I'm misunderstanding you but your video makes it sound like today's homosexuality is somehow different because of societal norms, acceptance etc. and as a result we should somehow see homosexuality different.
@@commonschurch also... ethics, morals and laws are all very different. I would argue that Christians should only be concerned with morals. Ethics are manmade morals are from God.
Yes. But that was relating to the Greek New Testament sections.
@@commonschurch so I'm not misunderstanding, and that IS what you're saying?
The whole “this word was translated badly” argument doesn’t work when the Bible describes the act in question in conjunction with using a single word.
As I explain in the video, I’m not sure translation is the issue as much as the cultural bias of the first century.
@@commonschurchwait, you’re saying that the translation says that such acts are sinful, but that the culture at the time is what influenced those passages to be written? You’re aware that those passages are in total alignment with Old Testament scripture right? And both are seen as the incontrovertible word of God passed down to humans through the Holy Spirit, right? Yeah it’s “cultural bias” or whatever, but the culture was implemented by God so what are you actually saying?
The only incontrovertible Word of God is Jesus. There are lots of sections in the Bible I (and probably you) don’t follow. We all have to make choices based on how we understand the way of Jesus.
@@commonschurch First, that’s an anti biblical view. The Word, Jesus, is God and his law is what is written in the Old Testament. Secondly, Jesus said sexual immorality was a sin. Sexual immorality, by the law Jesus said he came to fulfill described exactly which sexual behaviors are immoral, of which men lying with men is one. Even by your own standards Jesus said it’s a sin. As for not following parts of the Bible. I am constantly holding a self-audit of my behavior to ensure it is inline with scripture. Every time I pray I ask God to help me be the best servant of his that I can be and have his will be done through me so that I may glorify him. I would not disobey him for my own sake.
It’s possible we have different convictions about the Bible even as we both trust Jesus. You have heard it said but I tell you…
Grace and peace.
The concept has been. Yes
I believe you are sincere. But I also believe you are sincerely wrong. You went to the Scriptures looking for validation of your own political perspective, and you've drawn enough smokescreens around the text to pretend you don't understand it.
"Arsenokoitai" is Paul quoting, directly, from the Septuagint version of the Torah, the dreaded "Leviticus 18:22" passage which says "You shall not have sex with (koitai, from which we get the modern word koitus) a man (Arsen) as with a woman; it is an abomination."
All that confusion about "boy sex" is a red herring: this passage does not speak about that at all.
A survey of ancient Greek literature shows that the word "ἀρσενοκοῖται" is coined by Paul... it does not appear before Paul uses it... but that it comes into common usage AFTER Paul, always meaning "Homosexuality." Paul is literally quoting Moses (albeit creating a compound word to do so) with regard to this issue, and there is no differentiation between man/boy sex and man/man sex in the text... bringing that concept in is the very heart of eisegesis.
But as if that wasn't enough, Paul describes the homosexual act in Romans 1:
Romans 1:26-27 (ESV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Now, your arguments about "clobber passages" is meant to invoke the image of those of us using the Bible to inform our position as being bullies or thugs, "clobbering" people with the text. But the alternative is to avoid the text. So the idea of a "clobber passage" is really just a childish way of saying "I don't want to listen to the Bible."
We must not listen to the Bible through the lens of our politics or our desires. Yes, Love is the supreme ethic, but 54% of new AIDS cases are in the MSM (men who have sex with men) community, according too CDC.gov. MSM comprises roughly 2% of the population. To illustrate this, take 100 pennies (each representing 1% of all new AIDS cases) and divide them among 100 men: the first two men get 27 pennies each, the remaining 44 pennies are divided among the remaining 98 men. That's the danger of homosexual activity.
By age 40, most homosexual men report having more than 1000 partners. A homosexual lifestyle reduces life expectancy by 30 years. Domestic abuse is FAR more prevalent in the homosexual community than the heterosexual community.
So when we say "Love is the supreme ethic," the loving thing to do is to guide people OUT of this deadly lifestyle. You don't give an alcoholic a drink because you "love" him, you help him to avoid alcohol because you love him. Love desires the good of the other, and pushing someone toward or encouraging them in self destructive behaviors (like homosexuality) is the very opposite of a loving act.
"homoxesuality" is category invented in modern times referring to those who are attracted to the "same secs". in paul's day there was no such categories as liking the "same" vs "opposite" secs. male-bedders could not possibly have meant "homoxesual".
Other reasons:
- the modern word includes women who like women (hardly MALE-bedders)
- people who stay selibate are still homoxesaul (hardly male-BEDDERS)
- the context indicates deliberate hurtful acts but it is entirely possible for gays to be in loving, faithful relationships hurting no-one
- the context indicates behaviour people can change, but you can neither change your orientation nor remove your God-given needs for companionship and intimacy let alone secsual desire
- if it meant men bedding males, there were far too many such men in that era than could be explained by secsual orientation - it's about a completely different phenomenon unrelated to innate attraction
Unlike you claim, references to the word are mostly vice lists often quoted from the Bible. There is insufficient context or details anywhere about what male-bedders were doing or why it was wrong. There is no way to prove it meant "homoxesausl". Even if it likely meant men who go to bed with males (in those days, mostly boys and male prostitoots), what were the connotations? Why was it wrong? If you look at what was happening in the culture at the time and the prevalent attitudes to masculinity, you'll have your answer.
You point out some issues with the way modern gay lifestyle has developed, but you don't provide an answer to what someone gay should do with their lives. Stay single their whole life? That's a steep imposition, and God himself said it's not good. Marry against their orientation? That has been tried and it doesn't work. The answer is to repent from destructive practices and enter committed, faithful, loving relationships consistent with their orientation.
But because the church has been sending an erroneous message, teaching a false gospel that is impossible to obey, we have pushed these people away from God's saving grace and aided in perpetuating their harmful practices. We are complicit in the harmful behaviour you describe.
@@MusicalRaichu So what you're saying is that homosexuals are a recent invention?
Did you miss the first chapter of Romans? I bet you did!
@@AJBernard Alas the issue is much more complex than meets the eye and that's what creates the confusion. Given the misinterpretation that has built up on this issue, it can't really be explained in a few words. I'll give you some basic points as best I understand.
Homosecsuality is a concept invented in modern times that artificially combines androphilic men and gynephilic women into a single category. The understanding that people have an enduring capacity for intimate relationship with the same secs that cannot be changed at will is even more recent.
I'm not saying that males never went to bed together in the past - this is clearly mentioned in Rom 1 as you point out. It's just that categorizing the behaviour as "liking the same secs" is what's modern. In the past people were categorized differently. It makes no sense to use the term "homosecsual" in relation to anything before last century, certainly not the Bible.
The belief that same-secs acts are inherently wrong also appears to be modern. The traditional church belief was that all non-reproductive acts were wrong. If you followed traditional catholic and protestant teaching, then you would equally call a husband and wife having oral secs a sin. Even before that developed, men bedding adult men was problematic for other reasons, which is why they were doing it with boys, which the early church understandably opposed.
As for Rom 1, Paul is quoting Jewish stereotypes of gentile behaviour in order to get his Jewish readers to lower their guard so that he can more easily convince them that they are just as sinful. But you need to be careful about his statements. He said "ancient Roman idolatrous males did shameful things", a different statement to "all same-acts are sinful" which is how people often misread it. The Bible never says the latter. The very same texts we pull today to support the idea that homoxesuality is wrong were used in previous centuries to support the idea that non-reproductive secs was wrong, which demonstrates how open to interpretation they are.
This is not a trivial issue. As a start, I can recommend the videos on this channel which at least goes into what the Bibles says a lot more closely. The analyses of Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6 are particularly helpful.
czcams.com/channels/vxHn5v4XXNPdugStF3l6BQ.html
@@MusicalRaichu It's actually not at all complex. The Bible is very clear. You're the one muddying the waters.
You say "it doesn't mean what it says, it means something else," but you only say that because it suits your political agenda. There are actually several more places than just those two which talk about it... in the end, it's very clear.
Also, if you track the usage of the word "arsenokoitai," you find that Paul coins it by quoting from Leviticus 18:22, which is the verse you all REALLY hate. But he quotes from the Septuagint, which is why it's in greek. After Paul coins the term, it comes into common usage in the Greek and it always means the same thing: Men who have sex with men.
Have a nice night.
@@AJBernard You seem to have some misunderstanding.
you can assert it's not complex all you want, doesn't change reality. you might like things to be simple, but the fact is they're not.
What political agenda? Here in Australia, the country as a whole voted to accept same-secs marriage. Maybe in your country the issue has been politicized, but it has nothing to do with politics here.
some think paul coined male-bedders from leviticus, but
- that's conjecture, possible but not proved, so you shouldn't rely on it
- as i explained in detail, male-bedders does not mean homoxesual
- paul's view of leviticus is that it has been annulled and no longer applies
- leviticus is not about homoxesuality (the concept did not even exist at the time), it's about patriarchy, a male taking a woman's role
finally, the bible means what it says. it's those distorting it that are being deceptive:
bible: do not lie with a male as with a woman
some people: do not lie with the same secs
bible: idolatrous males did shameful things with each other
some people: lying with the same secs is shameful
bible: male-bedders are sinning
some people: homoxesauls are sinning
bible: it is not good to be alone
some people: gays have to stay alone
bible: for this reason a man marries a woman
some people: forget the reason, a man must only ever marry a reason or else it's a sin
bible: God destroyed those towns because of their callous disregard for other people
some people: God destroyed those towns because they were gay
i have to go now. have a nice day.
I think your views on Christianity are very similar to mine. I think that while we should read the word of God, we shouldn’t just rely on that. I think to be Christian is to follow God and have a spiritual relationship with God that doesn’t depend on the scriptures in the Bible. I think Christianity is more than just believing in what’s written, it is having a special connection to God, and knowing that he has unconditional love for you.
As well as if you look at what boy molesting was translated too in Greek it’s completely different than how this arsenokotai is being translated together and when you split the words.
You know there are many versions of the Bible, right? Some of them are incomplete, partial, and complete Bibles. This heavily indicated two things: neither Lord God Himself or Lord Jesus Christ Himself created the book and the Bible has been made by multiple generations. Many are translated and interpreted differently from one and another. Just using the English-language Bibles, that alone suggested they were created by men that spoke English, here are examples to support my claims. There are two versions of KJV, one made in 1611 and another made in 1769, spoken in Shakespearean language. KJV is famously known to be the "Authorized Version" in both UK and USA. Well, there's the Matthew's Bible, which was made in 1537. That Bible was made earlier than both KJV Bibles. There is the Woman's Bible, made both 1895 and 1898, after the KJV. And recent Bibles, like RNJB (completed) made in 2019, MCT recently made in 2019, and LSV made in 2020. You know the NLV was made 1986, so what makes that version of the Bible more credible than NKJV (made 1982) or NLT (made 1996) 😕 What makes any Bible made in English translation anymore credible than other Bibles made in different languages? I also want to point out the 1st Bible made in English-language is the Tyndale Bible, made in 1494-1536. Buuuuuut guess which Bible is considered to be the most accurate written, closest to the ancient manuscripts found thousands and thousands of years ago. It's the Codex Vaticanus, which has been historically and scientific proven as COMPLETE Bible in early 4th-century. I also want to point out that Bible isn't written in English, and is preserved currently in the Vatican Library. Oh, and the Geneva Bible is considered to be the most historically translations of the Bible into English, preceding the KJV
@@tomboyqu3726 yes absolutely my brother this whole argument on what right from what’s not is super crazy really
There all good I would believe and show the general context God shows I love everyone and love how smart we are I wish these things never have to be fought tbh
@@tomboyqu3726 that’s why I dropped this somethings are just to be read and to be moved along really amen brother 🙏♥️
Remember they used the bible to condone slavery smh