So, why is homosexuality wrong?

[wavy]

This is something I have never received an answer on by any believer who does not heed all Torah.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I assume (with hope) that we all agree this is a strict commandment against homosexual behavior.

When Christian believers quote Romans 13:8-10, or Galatians 5:14 as "proof" text that the Torah commandments are not binding, but all that matters is "love", why then is homosexuality forbidden?

Homosexual's can't love? They are constantly doing wrong to their neighbor?

Many then take you to Romans 1:26-27 and Romans 1:31 to use the words of Paul that prohibit homosexual behavior.

Is Paul contradicting himself? Why is he condemning that behavior if all that matters is love? Is he picking and choosing laws out of the "old" testament?

Why can't we have sex with beasts or sleep with our sister? Why can't we get drunk or commit fornication? These things don't stop us from "loving". We could very well do these things and still do no harm to our neighbor. Who's business is it about what goes on with you and your dog or horse?

It seems to me that there is more to how love fulfills the Torah than what most believers say goes along with it.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I've come to the conclusion after all my time on this forum that there is no 'criteria' for the born-again Christian anyway, so why the big deal about homosexuality? God's commands mean nothing any more. As long as I've tossed out God's eternal commandments, then homosexuality is WAY down the bottom of my list of 'dos and 'don'ts'. In fact, I don't have a list. It's 'once saved, always saved' for me so I can do whatever I want. I'm accountable to no one. Why is this even an issue ...? I'm a free (from the burdensome principles that determine right from wrong) 'Spirit-filled' Christian, don't you know?

 

[wavy]

I've come to the conclusion after all my time on this forum that there is no 'criteria' for the born-again Christian anyway, so why the big deal about homosexuality? God's commands mean nothing any more. As long as I've tossed out God's eternal commandments, then homosexuality is WAY down the bottom of my list of 'dos and 'don'ts'. In fact, I don't have a list. It's 'once saved, always saved' for me so I can do whatever I want. I'm accountable to no one. Why is this even an issue ...? I'm a free (from the burdensome principles that determine right from wrong) 'Spirit-filled' Christian, don't you know?

Sadly, this is exactly what we are expected to believe. Otherwise, we are legalists trying to be saved by works and rejecting Messiah altogether...

 

[Solo]

The lack of understanding the whole of the Word of God is the problem, not the law, and not the eternal security of the believer. People run helter skelter into their lives without leaning on God for information, and they decide for themselves what they want to heed and what they do not want to heed.

The Bible plainly teaches that the Law does not save, but the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ saves. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. Should we not walk in the righteousness of God? God forbid. We should continue in the righteousness of God more so because the Holy Spirit, God himself, resides within every born of God believer. Do we Keep the Mosaic Law? No we keep the spiritual law of God which he wrote on our hearts. What Law is that? It is not the ordinances that God gave the Israelites in the wilderness. The Mosaic Law was the mirror to show man that he was less than God's righteousness, and that man needed a savior which could only be fulfilled by God himself.

Now that a believer who is born of God, and who now has God himself living within him, can keep the spiritual law that was taught by Jesus Christ. In Jesus we can now keep the spiritual law of God by loving the Lord God with all of our heart, mind, and soul, with all of our strength; and loving our neighbor as ourself. Does this mean that we should keep the 'Thou shalt not murder' Law of Moses. Yes, we should keep the spiritual intent of that Law whereby we should not even get angry at our brother without a cause. Should we keep the commandment, 'thou shalt not steal'? Yes, because if we need anything, God will provide it to us, and if one asks us for our coat, we are to also give him our cloak. Should we circumcize outselves according to the Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic Law? No, because we are set apart and called out unto the covenant of God's Son through faith by grace. Should we keep the commandment, 'Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day holy'? Yes we should keep the Sabbath day holy. We should not rest from our vocations one day a week, but we should rest from all of our fleshly works seven days a week. If we keep all seven days holy by resting from all of our fleshly works every day, one day at a time, will we be keeping the Sabbath day holy? Yes.

Galatians and Romans are the best books in the Word of God that explains the Law and the Grace.

 

[wavy]

Do we Keep the Mosaic Law? No we keep the spiritual law of God which he wrote on our hearts. What Law is that?

Well, there is no scripture for a spiritual law aside from Torah. The Bible says in Romans 7:14 that the Torah is spiritual. It was always intended to be this way. Even with the ordinances which had spiritual meaning then and now, thus we should keep them.

we can now keep the spiritual law of God by loving the Lord God with all of our heart, mind, and soul, with all of our strength; and loving our neighbor as ourself.

This was always a requirement and is the basis for all the Ketuvim/Scriptures. This is not something Messiah introduced. This is recored, as we all know, in the Torah YHWH gave through Moshe. And part of doing this is not an abstract definition of "spiritual law" apart from Torah that is defined by "I have the Spirit so I know what it is".

Should we circumcize outselves according to the Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic Law? No, because we are set apart and called out unto the covenant of God's Son through faith by grace.

Your reason for not being circumcised is not a reason at all.

Yes we should keep the Sabbath day holy. We should not rest from our vocations one day a week, but we should rest from all of our fleshly works seven days a week. If we keep all seven days holy by resting from all of our fleshly works every day, one day at a time, will we be keeping the Sabbath day holy? Yes.

What is the sabbath day? A day to refrain from work or occupation. It has spiritual significance. It helps us to realize that we can rely on Yahweh to supply us with our needs even if take a day off, and this is why it is made for us (the whole principle of Exodus 16). It also recalles creation into mind (Exodus 20:11). And it is also because our fathers were taken out of Egypt on the 15th of Aviv, which is a sabbath day. This is why Yahweh gave this commandment as a another reason for all Israel to keep the sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:15). It is also a miqra qadosh/holy convocation. An appointed time for believers to gather together in fellowship in one accord (Leviticus 23:3). It is also a sign that we belong to Yahweh and that he alone is the creator of heaven and earth. A direct smack in the face of all the gentile pagans and their gods (Exodus 31:13). It is also a worship day (Isaiah 66:23).

As far as what "our vocations" are, this has to be defined. Because every other day besides the sabbath (and the moadim) is a day we must work on, usually, to survive. Everyday we are to walk in the manner of love and obedience to Yahweh. None of these Torah commandments are "our vocations". They are what Yahweh has given to us, thus it is for his glory, and is kept sure in Messiah.

I'm not sure what you mean by "our vocation". This is not a good excuse for breaking the sabbath because if you are working on it, you have violated it and thus you cannot be keeping it.


Regardless, this still doesn't answer the question about homosexuality. Homosexuals, or those who engage in the practice thereof, are perfectly capable of doing everything you just described. Why is homosexuality sin? You still didn't answer that question. The only answer that you could possibly give is the "spirit told me so".

 

[wavy]

And just in case you decide to quote this:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of YHWH: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Understand that the context is not what commandments we obey. As a matter of fact, since the Torah is Spiritual, heeding and guarding Torah could very well and logically be considered part of the things that the natural man cannot receive. Those in the flesh are not subject to his Torah:

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the Torah of YHWH, neither indeed can be.

And to clearly prove from scripture that the writing of laws on the heart is not some "spiritual law" that the Spirit tells you telepathically and redefines Torah and the definition of sin, or changes the conventional way of keeping Torah, please see below:

So what about Jeremiah 31:31-34? It's really heartbreaking that people use this scripture to disprove true Torah keeping, when in fact, it's saying just the opposite. This may also be insightful to you.

Let's take a look:

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

I want to stop here. This verse is very important. Sadly, the only words that are noticed by people in this verse are usually "new covenant". That's all people see, and then some assume this automatically connotes a different Torah where we don't have to keep it the "old way". But there is something very important in this verse. There are two parties mentioned here: the house of Judah and the house of Israel (ten northern tribes). Notice how both divided houses are distinguished here from eachother, as will be seen as significant later. This also rebukes any doctrine that "gentiles" as a separate entity from Israel as Yahweh's people are part of this covenant. Let us not add to the the Word when the Word says no such thing. Those from the nations/gentiles can become a part of this covenant through Messiah, but as such, they are considered Israel.


Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YHWH:

What is this "not according to the covenant..." here? Many people only notice these words in this scripture too and assume it means that he doesn't require Torah obedience anymore. As we will see, this has nothing to do with changing his laws or standard of conduct. This has to do with the method Torah will be given this time. They were given on stone (and thus outside of the heart), through Moses (who broke the Torah) from Mt Sinai in the wilderness. He's not going to do that this time. Torah is an aspect of the covenant, not the entire covenant itself. Continuing:


Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YHWH, I will put my Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Once again, it is sad that most people look at "I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts", and then automatically think "see! that means that we keep only the moral laws now because the Spirit tells us what to do! it's not about rules and regulations!"

They ignore the rest of the verse, which is equally important, and they also prove that they need to read the rest of the scripture. They look at it from and unlearned, non-Hebraic, biased viewpoint. Notice he only mentions the house of Israel when he says he will put his Torah within them. Why does he do this, and why does he not include Judah? And why does he say he "will be their God, and they shall be my people"? Is this just a random statement? According to a lot of Christendom today, it very much is. He says this for absolutely no reason. It's just a nice little vain addition to this verse.

But as we will explicity prove, there is a reason only the house of Israel is mentioned in this verse, and there is a reason he says he "will be their God, and they shall be my people". This covenant was made to redeem all Israel (both houses) from division and all former sin (not to change Torah) and to bring both houses together in unity, which is what he is saying in the next verse:

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know YHWH: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith YHWH: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Both houses will no longer be divided having to teach one another as brothers and neighbors (Judah will not have to teach Israel the Torah and to know Yahweh for example, and Israel will not have to teach Judah about knowing Yahweh through Messiah) because both redeemed houses will know Yahweh and his Torah. He will forgive all iniquity (Torah-less-ness) and all sin and forget it (grace).

But back to Jeremiah 31:33; what is that saying? Let's take a look at Hosea, the prophet to the northern tribes. This will clear everything up:


Hosea 1:9 Then said Elohim, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
Hosea 1:11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves One Head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.


Now you're probably like, "What the hey?". Although I'd advise you to read the chapter, I will give you a briefing on what's going on.

Yahweh through Hosea is declaring the curses and idolatry of Ephraim Israel (ten northern tribes, or the house of Israel). He tells him to take a wife of "whoredoms" (symbolizing the sin of the house Israel). He is using this to typify the curses of Israel through Hosea and his wife's children (who represent the children of the house Israel as opposed to Judah)

His first child with this wife (who's name was "Gomer") was a boy Yahweh commanded to be called Yizre-El, or "Jezreel", as it reads in the KJV. Yizre-El means "El will sow". El will sow what? The children of Israel scattered out in all nations. This is touched on in my "Gentiles of the NT" thread, so we won't get into the scattering part now and how Yahweh promised to sow the scattered seed of Israel.

Anyway, with the birth and naming of this child, Yahweh cursed the house of Israel with the cessation of their kingdom (Hosea 1:4-5).

The second child Hosea had by Gomer was a girl Yahweh commanded to be named Lo-ruchamah, which means "no mercy". He said he would not have mercy on the children of Israel but would have mercy on the house of Judah (Hosea 1:6-7). This let's us know that the house of Judah and the house of Israel are not the same, and are not interchangeable terms in this context. Here is a curse of no mercy upon the house of Israel for their Torah-less-ness.

Hosea's third child was commanded to be named Lo-Ami, meaning "not my people". He tells us this in the verses above that I posted, saying that the children of the house of Israel are as the sand of the sea, and that one day, in the land where it was said "you are not my people" by Yahweh, it would be said to them "you are the children of the living God".

Messiah at his first advent declared the reversal of these curses starting at the beginning of Matthew 5 as the fulfillment of this prophecy. The last verse, Hosea 1:11, brings Jeremiah 31:31-34 to light. This covenant was made (the NT reveals to us it was put into effect by the blood of Messiah) to bring both divided and scattered houses of Israel and Judah together and allows Yahweh to be their husand again despite the curses from their Torah-less-ness.

This is why Yahweh distinguishes the house of Israel from Judah in Jeremiah 31:33 and says what he said. He makes it clear that through this new covenant of redemption and restoration, he once again becomes their God and they his people. He had to write the Torah on their heart so they could do them, unlike before which is the reason they were cursed. Judah needs Messiah. He has Torah and even foolishly thinks it will save him and that he can reject Messiah because of it.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 has absolutely nothing to do with changing laws or only requiring the "moral laws" of Torah. Ezekiel makes it clear what this means:

Ezekiel 36:16 Moreover the word of YHWH came unto me, saying,
Ezekiel 36:17 Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman.
Ezekiel 36:18 Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it:
Ezekiel 36:19 And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them.
Ezekiel 36:20 And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These are the people of YHWH, and are gone forth out of his land.
Ezekiel 36:21 But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.
Ezekiel 36:22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Master YHWH; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
Ezekiel 36:23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am YHWH, saith the Master YHWH, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
Ezekiel 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Ezekiel 36:28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.


This is the reason Yahweh gives us a new heart and why he writes his Torah on our heart by the Spirit: so we can perform his Torah. Just for the "rules and regulations" sake? No. So we can just do what Yahweh said with a joyful, pure, obedient, repentant heart. And this is how loving Yahweh with all heart/soul/mind/strength and loving our neighbor as ourselves is the basis of all the Torah and Prophets.

This is how love fulfills the Torah. Not that we redefine what right and wrong is based of our manmade concept of "morale". Torah was always supposed to be on the heart. This is not a new concept. Yahweh said it through Moses long before Jeremiah or the New Testament was written:

Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deuteronomy 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of YHWH thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the Torah, and if thou turn unto YHWH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deuteronomy 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deuteronomy 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deuteronomy 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deuteronomy 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

This is the Spirit put in us by and through Messiah Yahshua. He is the "Word" that is "nigh" to us. Paul makes this clear in Romans 10:4-13.

 

[Solo]

Do we Keep the Mosaic Law? No we keep the spiritual law of God which he wrote on our hearts. What Law is that?

Well, there is no scripture for a spiritual law aside from Torah. The Bible says in Romans 7:14 that the Torah is spiritual. It was always intended to be this way. Even with the ordinances which had spiritual meaning then and now, thus we should keep them.

Did the Israelites of the Exodus from Egypt keep the Law in the spirit or in the flesh? They did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so the priest made atonement for them. We now have the Spirit of God, God himself dwelling within us as believers, and are able to keep the spiritual Law of God. That is why Jesus fulfilled the Law.

we can now keep the spiritual law of God by loving the Lord God with all of our heart, mind, and soul, with all of our strength; and loving our neighbor as ourself.

This was always a requirement and is the basis for all the Ketuvim/Scriptures. This is not something Messiah introduced. This is recored, as we all know, in the Torah YHWH gave through Moshe. And part of doing this is not an abstract definition of "spiritual law" apart from Torah that is defined by "I have the Spirit so I know what it is".

God can not be pleased apart from spiritual worship, therefore, the Law was prohibitive to the Israelites because they had to depend on the priest to keep them inline with the Law. Those that did not believe were in deep trouble. The law is now written on the hearts of those that are born of God. Those that are not born of God can not keep the spiritual law no matter how much they do with the Law. It is a fruitless attempt.

Should we circumcize outselves according to the Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic Law? No, because we are set apart and called out unto the covenant of God's Son through faith by grace.

Your reason for not being circumcised is not a reason at all.

Your opinion is flawed according to the teachings of Paul in the Word of God.

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, Romans 4:9-16

Yes we should keep the Sabbath day holy. We should not rest from our vocations one day a week, but we should rest from all of our fleshly works seven days a week. If we keep all seven days holy by resting from all of our fleshly works every day, one day at a time, will we be keeping the Sabbath day holy? Yes.

What is the sabbath day? A day to refrain from work or occupation. It has spiritual significance. It helps us to realize that we can rely on Yahweh to supply us with our needs even if take a day off, and this is why it is made for us (the whole principle of Exodus 16). It also recalles creation into mind (Exodus 20:11). And it is also because our fathers were taken out of Egypt on the 15th of Aviv, which is a sabbath day. This is why Yahweh gave this commandment as a another reason for all Israel to keep the sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:15). It is also a miqra qadosh/holy convocation. An appointed time for believers to gather together in fellowship in one accord (Leviticus 23:3). It is also a sign that we belong to Yahweh and that he alone is the creator of heaven and earth. A direct smack in the face of all the gentile pagans and their gods (Exodus 31:13). It is also a worship day (Isaiah 66:23).

As far as what "our vocations" are, this has to be defined. Because every other day besides the sabbath (and the moadim) is a day we must work on, usually, to survive. Everyday we are to walk in the manner of love and obedience to Yahweh. None of these Torah commandments are "our vocations". They are what Yahweh has given to us, thus it is for his glory, and is kept sure in Messiah.

I'm not sure what you mean by "our vocation". This is not a good excuse for breaking the sabbath because if you are working on it, you have violated it and thus you cannot be keeping it.


Regardless, this still doesn't answer the question about homosexuality. Homosexuals, or those who engage in the practice thereof, are perfectly capable of doing everything you just described. Why is homosexuality sin? You still didn't answer that question. The only answer that you could possibly give is the "spirit told me so".

The rest from our works is the spiritual law that the Mosaic Law was a picture of. I don't know how many times I will have to tell you the meaning of keeping the Law written on our hearts as Jesus described in Matthew 5 as opposed to the Law that the fleshly Israelites could not keep as they did not have the Spirit of God dwelling within them. They only had a priest to go unto God for them, and by their faith they were saved, not by the Law.

As far as answering the homosexual question, I have done that in other threads. This thread is redundant at this time, and I answered your post to SputnikBoy as you chased a rabbit on a tangent away from the topic.

When you come to understand the spiritual law written upon the hearts of those born of God, having the God of creation living within each of us, then the bondage of the Law as described in Galatians 4 will be removed, and you can live free in Christ Jesus. Remember, the truth will set you free.

 

[wavy]

They did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so the priest made atonement for them.

This is an assumption. The unbelieving ones, of course not. But we don't know about the believing ones. It can at least be proven that Moshe and the elders and rulers and Yahoshua (called "Joshua") had the Spirit. This was never a release from Torah, however.

We now have the Spirit of God, God himself dwelling within us as believers, and are able to keep the spiritual Law of God. That is why Jesus fulfilled the Law.

No, Yahshua's fulfillment of the Torah is something completely different. It has to do with him executing and performing what all the scriptures said he should do. Nothing about a "spiritual law" apart from Torah is mentioned. Please see: How Did Messiah Fulfill the Torah?

Your opinion is flawed according to the teachings of Paul in the Word of God.

This is your assumption. Paul was a third generation Pharisee and a Rabbi that expected his students to at least know the sod understanding of scripture and have a decent foundation in the Tanach. Peter warns about those who don't understand Paul because they are "lawless" and "unlearned". Please see 2 Peter 3:15-17.

What Paul taught against was the order in which one received circumcision, which is supposed to be after the order of Abraham (faith then circumcision, not the other way around). To say Paul preached against this is to call Paul a liar:

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Torah and in the prophets:

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the Torah of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Acts 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

He also disproved the rumor that he taught against Torah in Acts 21, unless you are prepared to say he was being a hypocrite and proved a lie. He also had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16.

The rest from our works is the spiritual law that the Mosaic Law was a picture of.

Well, you have yet to prove it exists.

I don't know how many times I will have to tell you the meaning of keeping the Law written on our hearts as Jesus described in Matthew 5 as opposed to the Law that the fleshly Israelites could not keep as they did not have the Spirit of God dwelling within them. They only had a priest to go unto God for them, and by their faith they were saved, not by the Law.

Please read what I had on the what Jeremiah 31:31-34 is about and answer that.

As far as answering the homosexual question, I have done that in other threads. This thread is redundant at this time, and I answered your post to SputnikBoy as you chased a rabbit on a tangent away from the topic.

Sorry that I am not a psychic and don't have the time to search for what you've written in the past. That's why I made this. Answer it here if you have anything to say about it.

When you come to understand the spiritual law written upon the hearts of those born of God, having the God of creation living within each of us, then the bondage of the Law as described in Galatians 4 will be removed, and you can live free in Christ Jesus. Remember, the truth will set you free.

When you understand that there is no "spiritual law' apart from Torah and the true definition of how Yahshua fulfilled the scriptures, the truth will set you free. To have an understanding of the NT you have to know the Tanach. You don't seem to have a very good foundation in the Tanach and thus, interpret scripture through Greco-Roman, American thought taught to you by what Christendom has taught for centuries. Mine isn't nearly as strong as it could be either, but we could all use a little work.

Psalm 119:44 So shall I keep thy Torah continually for ever and ever.
Psalm 119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

 

[itoldyounoalready]

Why is this the fifth topic I've seen on this issue? :roll:

 

[wavy]

Well, when is their going to be a fifth sufficient answer?

 

[Solo]

Well, when is their going to be a fifth sufficient answer?

There have been five sufficient answers. They just haven't been sufficiently accepted by some.

 

[wavy]

Well, where's the one in here?

 

[Solo]

Well, where's the one in here?

If you haven't the eyes to see or the ears to hear it is like explaining colors to the blind and music to the deaf.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Well, where's the one in here?

If you haven't the eyes to see or the ears to hear it is like explaining colors to the blind and music to the deaf.

How poetic.

 

[wavy]

As far as answering the homosexual question, I have done that in other threads. This thread is redundant at this time, and I answered your post to SputnikBoy as you chased a rabbit on a tangent away from the topic.

By your own admittance, there is no answer to this question other than the inevitable explanation: Torah commandments are still binding - the way it always has been.

You said you answered it in other threads, a.k.a. not in this one. So there was no need for your comment.

 

[Solo]

As far as answering the homosexual question, I have done that in other threads. This thread is redundant at this time, and I answered your post to SputnikBoy as you chased a rabbit on a tangent away from the topic.

By your own admittance, there is no answer to this question other than the inevitable explanation: Torah commandments are still binding - the way it always has been.

You said you answered it in other threads, a.k.a. not in this one. So there was no need for your comment.

You keep the Torah as you feel you ought to by allowing your flesh to govern the practices that you bind yourself to, and I will keep the commandments as God reveals that I ought to. I have explained to you countless times that the Law does not save anyone, only being born of God does. When one is born of God, the Holy Spirit of God (God himself) directs the believer into keeping the commandments of Jesus Christ as he taught them in a spiritual mode when the non-spiritual Israelites did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling gift of the Spirit of God did not occur until Pentecost. Get with the New Testament sometime and you and I will have some unity. Until then you are living apart from the Rock of Jesus Christ.

 

[wavy]

You keep the Torah as you feel you ought to by allowing your flesh to govern the practices that you bind yourself to, and I will keep the commandments as God reveals that I ought to.

Well, sadly, you have not been able to prove this.

I have explained to you countless times that the Law does not save anyone, only being born of God does.

Then you waste your time. I keep repeating to you that Torah does not save.

When one is born of God, the Holy Spirit of God (God himself) directs the believer into keeping the commandments of Jesus Christ as he taught them in a spiritual mode when the non-spiritual Israelites did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Again, we can play the "I have the Spirit and so I know what to do even though it may not be in scripture" is a game we can all play if you like.

The indwelling gift of the Spirit of God did not occur until Pentecost.

Lie.

Get with the New Testament sometime and you and I will have some unity. Until then you are living apart from the Rock of Jesus Christ.

***sigh***

With all this ad hominem you still did not answer the homosexuality question. You've been doing that to my threads lately. Taking them off topic to personally attack me...

 

[Guest]

From an exhaustive examination of the original Hebrew and Greek texts:

So, the Hebrew text means literally: "And with a male, thou man shalt not lay in beds of a woman." The meaning of 'ishshah', might be either "a woman," or "a wife". There are a number of possible interpretations of this prohibition:

1. A man is forbidden to lay with a male in his own wife's bed.
2. A man is forbidden to lay with a male in the bed of the wife of that male.
3. A man is forbidden to lay with a male as he might a woman.
4. A man is forbidden to lay with a male as he might his own wife.
5. A man is forbidden to lay with a male as that male might his wife.
6. A man is forbidden to lay with a male in any bed belonging to a woman.

Note that the condition "mishkevey 'ishshah" (whatever it means) is not required to specify sexual intimacy, as the verb "shakav" itself idiomatically does so. It is enough to say "and thou, man, shalt not lay with a male" the addition "in beds of woman" or "as with a woman" is superfluous if a blanket ban is to be indicated. The condemnation of bestiality that follows [Lev 18:23] has no conditionality associated with it. It does not condemn a man who lays with a beast as with a woman, but just a man who lays with a beast for defilement (this is the outcome, not a modifier) and a woman laying with a beast to give herself to it (which is inevitable, given the implication of "laying with", and does not specify any particular way of giving herself).

The first two cases have already been considered under the heading of the Septuagint text. The interpretation given there, based on the Greek of the Septuagint remains tenable.

As we have seen, the next cases 3 to 5 strain the text. Nevertheless, let them be admitted as possible translations. It is possible to see in each of them a contrast between some form of sexual intercourse involving a man and a woman/a wife/his wife, on the one hand; and relations between a man and any male (human being?) on the other. Something which is licit between a man and woman (note that this English idiom also omits the expected 'his') is forbidden between a man and any male. At first sight, it would seem that the burden of proof is upon anyone who suggests this is not a blanket condemnation of sexual relations between all men, and that it rather applies in only some (unspoken) context such as (ritual) prostitution. On reflection, however, it will be noted that this argument is flawed:

* Either
o the woman is the wife of one party:
o in which case what is condemned is sexual infidelity;
* or
o the woman involved is not the wife of either party,
o and this argument implies that heterosexual adultery fornication is licit!

Taking a different tack, the idea that a contrast is being between licit and illicit behaviour can be dropped. In which case, it must be accepted that the conditionality of the text specifies something about the character of the "laying" that it is forbidden for a man with another male.

Taking a responsible view, one can either say that:

1. a contrast is involved and the woman is a wife of one party
* in which case the essential wrong is adultery,
2. no contrast is involved
* in which case the verse deals with an indeterminate sub-set of homosexual activity.

The sixth and final case clearly forbids the use of any woman's bed to two male lovers, but passes no comment on anything that they might do together anywhere else. This interpretation is the most natural, both textually and culturally. In ritual terms, a Hebrew woman's bed was her own. The only person permitted in it apart from herself was her husband, and there were restrictions on when he might share it with her. Any other use of her bed would have been considered a defilement.

...

Conclusions

1. It may be that all that is forbidden to a pair of male lovers is the use of a woman's bed!
2. It is also possible that what is condemned by [Lev 18:22] is homo-gender adultery.
3. There are, however, three reasons for concluding that [Lev 18:22] forbids all homosexuality:
* a simplistic reading of the text itself
* one view of the context of the verse (but this argument is contentious)
* the indigenous interpretative tradition (but this argument is inconclusive)
4. On the other hand, there are reasons for concluding that [Lev 18:22] envisages only ritual prostitution:
* another view of the context of the verse (again contentious)
* the fact that male ritual prostitutes certainly existed [Deut 23:17,18]
* the fact that Deuteronomy omits any reference to homo-gender sexual relations [Deut 27:20-23]
5. A final possibility is that only some unspecified sub-set of homo-gender physical intimacy that is like that between a man and wife is forbidden.

Interpretation should be sensitive to context regardless of whether we would then want to agree or disagree with the moral import of the passage. Most Christians (rightly or wrongly) strongly disagree with the Old Testament's casual acceptance of polygamy, and (rightly or wrongly) would demand a more severe punishment for rape than that stipulated by Moses: marriage! An intellectually respectable course for those who do not agree with any general prohibition of homosexuality that might be found in Leviticus is for them to disown it. This is quite legitimate, whether others like it or not! History is replete with those who have objected to some parts of Leviticus: the Apostles Peter and Paul individually, the Council of Jerusalem and the bishops of the Oecumenical Council of Florence (which positively teaches that circumcision is a mortal sin) come to mind. To disagree frankly with what is said is more responsible, and more productive of intelligent discussion, than an attempt to twist Leviticus to correspond to current opinion.

I recommend the reading of the full article, as the breakdown of translation attempts is, if nothing else, interesting.

I also wonder what the opinions, here, are as regards lesbianism? Leviticus, at least, pretty clearly is specifying male homosexuality, and is conspicuously silent on what women can do.

 

[living4onlyJC]

Why homosexuality is wrong.
1) God said it is.. so therefore it is. Who are we to question God and his authority?
2) God made man and woman for each other. (why do you think that God made adam a wife and not a man?)


What's to understand about the topic?
We are supposed to obey God. We are not always going to understand, but we just accept it.
If you aren't a christian than I can understand why this topic should be brought up.

 

[Guest]

Why homosexuality is wrong.
1) God said it is.. so therefore it is. Who are we to question God and his authority?

Well, that's nice and all, but that's kinda what my post was getting at. What, exactly, did God say? English translations gloss over a lot of details, which makes debates such as these a bit more complicated. Suffice to say, if you've never looked at least the translation notes pertaining to the original Hebrew or Greek texts, you're getting a very narrow view. The word of God may be absolute, and the original texts as written may be infallible, but that doesn't mean that every English translation that comes down the pike is also infallible, which can be very easily demonstrated by noting that various translations disagree with one another.

So, aside from boilerplate about how God said so, do you have anything to contribute as regards my post above, and various possible interpretations of the phrase "Kai meta arsenos ou koimEthEsE koitEn gunaikos."?