Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

When you read the Bible, please remember the time period and the culture of the writer of that particular book.

Back then, women were not educated, and that is why they were not allowed to teach..because you don't want an uneducated person teaching someone. This would apply today, as well. However, keep in mind that Jesus himself taught women, welcomed them.

A lot of people forget that second part of the verse “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", which is "Husbands, love your wives as Jesus loves the church." In that regard, men and women are submitting to each other.

Slavery - while Jesus never outright condemns slavery, he does mention several times to "Love each other as I have loved you". This would mean a Master should love his Slave, which includes not mistreating them. Jesus taught to obey the laws, both God's and man's, with the exception of when man's laws goes against God's law. Also, Jesus teaches to react to cruelty with love (as in, turn the other cheek). So here, he is acknowledging that there are cruel people in this world, and as a Christian, you are to treat this person with love.

That last part is hard to follow. First to admit, I can't follow that part.

Back to Op's question - yes, the homosexual act is a sin, and so is adultery, greed, slander, etc.. as others have mentioned. I sin everyday, more or less. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

I believe if Jesus were here today, He would indeed reach out to gay people.

But therein lies the problem; you are choosing to interpret Paul's words and relate it to the times. A not unreasonable position, I would add but once one opens the door to relating some of Paul's comments in the context of the times he lived, why limit it to the role of women in those times?

One could say the same thing about gays and gay relationships; perhaps in those times it was viewed as sinful but today, at least in much of the West, it is viewed as a choice that two people of the same sex choose to make. Often, it is a relationship that is based on love and understanding - characteristics which Christ would certainly have advocated and approved. Besides, the fact that Christ never even mentioned homosexuality is striking given the OT's strong admonitions against it.

The only thing about what you stated in bold is that in both OT and NT, it states that the act is abhorrent or detestable to God (in some way). There are many specific sins that Jesus did not talk about. But His general message was about salvation, not about specific sin. So, it makes sense that He wouldn't focus on *all* sinful acts.

Jesus didn't talk about lots of OT rules, like graven images. So does that mean we should burn all our photos? Are you for restrictions against garments with two or more types of fibers, because Jesus didn't mention this OT rule? In fact, Jesus specifically boiled everything down to a few rules, like love God, your neighbor, and your enemy.

When you say "in some way," you're referring to Paul on homosexuality, and we've discussed that. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Paul.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

When you read the Bible, please remember the time period and the culture of the writer of that particular book.

Back then, women were not educated, and that is why they were not allowed to teach..because you don't want an uneducated person teaching someone. This would apply today, as well. However, keep in mind that Jesus himself taught women, welcomed them.

A lot of people forget that second part of the verse “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", which is "Husbands, love your wives as Jesus loves the church." In that regard, men and women are submitting to each other.

Slavery - while Jesus never outright condemns slavery, he does mention several times to "Love each other as I have loved you". This would mean a Master should love his Slave, which includes not mistreating them. Jesus taught to obey the laws, both God's and man's, with the exception of when man's laws goes against God's law. Also, Jesus teaches to react to cruelty with love (as in, turn the other cheek). So here, he is acknowledging that there are cruel people in this world, and as a Christian, you are to treat this person with love.

That last part is hard to follow. First to admit, I can't follow that part.

Back to Op's question - yes, the homosexual act is a sin, and so is adultery, greed, slander, etc.. as others have mentioned. I sin everyday, more or less. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

I believe if Jesus were here today, He would indeed reach out to gay people.

But therein lies the problem; you are choosing to interpret Paul's words and relate it to the times. A not unreasonable position, I would add but once one opens the door to relating some of Paul's comments in the context of the times he lived, why limit it to the role of women in those times?

One could say the same thing about gays and gay relationships; perhaps in those times it was viewed as sinful but today, at least in much of the West, it is viewed as a choice that two people of the same sex choose to make. Often, it is a relationship that is based on love and understanding - characteristics which Christ would certainly have advocated and approved. Besides, the fact that Christ never even mentioned homosexuality is striking given the OT's strong admonitions against it.

The only thing about what you stated in bold is that in both OT and NT, it states that the act is abhorrent or detestable to God (in some way). There are many specific sins that Jesus did not talk about. But His general message was about salvation, not about specific sin. So, it makes sense that He wouldn't focus on *all* sinful acts.

Many scholars think Jesus not only taught women (Mary and Martha) but he also probably encouraged women teachers such as, probably, Mary Magdalene. That's a pretty big difference between Jesus and the Pauline passage above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

When you read the Bible, please remember the time period and the culture of the writer of that particular book.

Back then, women were not educated, and that is why they were not allowed to teach..because you don't want an uneducated person teaching someone. This would apply today, as well. However, keep in mind that Jesus himself taught women, welcomed them.

A lot of people forget that second part of the verse “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", which is "Husbands, love your wives as Jesus loves the church." In that regard, men and women are submitting to each other.

Slavery - while Jesus never outright condemns slavery, he does mention several times to "Love each other as I have loved you". This would mean a Master should love his Slave, which includes not mistreating them. Jesus taught to obey the laws, both God's and man's, with the exception of when man's laws goes against God's law. Also, Jesus teaches to react to cruelty with love (as in, turn the other cheek). So here, he is acknowledging that there are cruel people in this world, and as a Christian, you are to treat this person with love.

That last part is hard to follow. First to admit, I can't follow that part.

Back to Op's question - yes, the homosexual act is a sin, and so is adultery, greed, slander, etc.. as others have mentioned. I sin everyday, more or less. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

I believe if Jesus were here today, He would indeed reach out to gay people.

But therein lies the problem; you are choosing to interpret Paul's words and relate it to the times. A not unreasonable position, I would add but once one opens the door to relating some of Paul's comments in the context of the times he lived, why limit it to the role of women in those times?

One could say the same thing about gays and gay relationships; perhaps in those times it was viewed as sinful but today, at least in much of the West, it is viewed as a choice that two people of the same sex choose to make. Often, it is a relationship that is based on love and understanding - characteristics which Christ would certainly have advocated and approved. Besides, the fact that Christ never even mentioned homosexuality is striking given the OT's strong admonitions against it.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I was the PP who posted that my primary emphasis is what Christ teaches us as stated in the gospels. It is not that I disregard other parts of the Bible but I don't view the OT and the NT (other than the gospels) as being sacrosanct.

The interesting thing is there are many scholars who view some of Paul's letters as having been authored by someone other than Paul but that claim would be viewed as blasphemous by the "literalists" as you describe them.

I agreed with you about focussing on the gospels of Jesus, and I think 1-2 others here did, too.

Yes, too, to your statement that many scholars think that Paul didn't write everything that's been attributed to him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I have your answer.

When Jesus died on the cross, all of those regulations given to Moses and the hebrew people were technically eliminated. Not the 10 commandments, just all those other over the top rules given to Moses by God that he gave to his people.

However, the verses against homosexuality are beyond the Jewish regulations and continued after Jesus died. See Roman's 1:26. Therefore, they still apply.

If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Yeah, we've already had the conversation about how Paul's letters don't carry the same weight as Jesus' own sayings, except to a dwindling number of literalists. These are all from Paul, not from Jesus. The New Testament is not like the Quran, where every word is treated equally, as coming directly from God.

Yes, I was the PP who posted that my primary emphasis is what Christ teaches us as stated in the gospels. It is not that I disregard other parts of the Bible but I don't view the OT and the NT (other than the gospels) as being sacrosanct.

The interesting thing is there are many scholars who view some of Paul's letters as having been authored by someone other than Paul but that claim would be viewed as blasphemous by the "literalists" as you describe them.

Paul was not a disciple. He was a famous convert after Jesus' death, struck by the light on the road to Emmaus.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, we've already had the conversation about how Paul's letters don't carry the same weight as Jesus' own sayings, except to a dwindling number of literalists. These are all from Paul, not from Jesus. The New Testament is not like the Quran, where every word is treated equally, as coming directly from God.

For many the writings of the gospels were inspired by God. God did not write them with his own hand but he wrote them through Jesus’ disciples. They are God's words not the disciples words.

It becomes a very slippery slope if you do not subscribe to this believe. For if the disciple writings are merely words of a common man, then everything they write needs to be taken as such. That is to say, then nothing they wrote is the word of God.

And if only part of the disciple writings are the word of God. Who has the authority to choose which are and which are not? King James? You? Me?

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical scholars will readily accept Paul's teachings to be in line with Jesus' teachings. And when you say "dwindling number of literalists", does that mean that in your opinion most Christians don't accept Paul's teachings in the Bible?

Some/many scholars argue that Jesus included women teachers among his apostles. For example, Mary Magdalene may have been one of these women teachers. There's a field of scholarship devoted to this, if you care to explore further. That would be one big difference between Jesus and Paul.

To address your question about Paul: many Christians, including a number here on DCUM, will tell you that they focus on Jesus' words in the Gospels, and give less weight to Paul and others. Many see Paul as being divinely inspired. But Paul isn't Jesus, obviously. Saying that Paul is "in line with Jesus' teachings" on many things is different from saying that Paul speaks for Jesus on all things. Some Christians, a small minority, will tell you they think "Paul is appalling" and they don't see why it was necessary to include his letters in the New Testament.

Moreover, Paul is very much a person of his time. Paul saw his mission as spreading Christianity to a predominantly non-Christian Roman Empire. Paul is very much focussed on things like, should converts to Christianity be circumcised, and he decides "no" in the context of his audience that is predominantly non-Jewish and non-Christian. Paul was clearly working within the culture and traditions of his era. Jesus' teachings, by contrast, are pretty much timeless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I have your answer.

When Jesus died on the cross, all of those regulations given to Moses and the hebrew people were technically eliminated. Not the 10 commandments, just all those other over the top rules given to Moses by God that he gave to his people.

However, the verses against homosexuality are beyond the Jewish regulations and continued after Jesus died. See Roman's 1:26. Therefore, they still apply.

If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Yeah, we've already had the conversation about how Paul's letters don't carry the same weight as Jesus' own sayings, except to a dwindling number of literalists. These are all from Paul, not from Jesus. The New Testament is not like the Quran, where every word is treated equally, as coming directly from God.

Most Biblical scholars will readily accept Paul's teachings to be in line with Jesus' teachings. And when you say "dwindling number of literalists", does that mean that in your opinion most Christians don't accept Paul's teachings in the Bible?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I have your answer.

When Jesus died on the cross, all of those regulations given to Moses and the hebrew people were technically eliminated. Not the 10 commandments, just all those other over the top rules given to Moses by God that he gave to his people.

However, the verses against homosexuality are beyond the Jewish regulations and continued after Jesus died. See Roman's 1:26. Therefore, they still apply.

If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

When you read the Bible, please remember the time period and the culture of the writer of that particular book.

Back then, women were not educated, and that is why they were not allowed to teach..because you don't want an uneducated person teaching someone. This would apply today, as well. However, keep in mind that Jesus himself taught women, welcomed them.

A lot of people forget that second part of the verse “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", which is "Husbands, love your wives as Jesus loves the church." In that regard, men and women are submitting to each other.

Slavery - while Jesus never outright condemns slavery, he does mention several times to "Love each other as I have loved you". This would mean a Master should love his Slave, which includes not mistreating them. Jesus taught to obey the laws, both God's and man's, with the exception of when man's laws goes against God's law. Also, Jesus teaches to react to cruelty with love (as in, turn the other cheek). So here, he is acknowledging that there are cruel people in this world, and as a Christian, you are to treat this person with love.

That last part is hard to follow. First to admit, I can't follow that part.

Back to Op's question - yes, the homosexual act is a sin, and so is adultery, greed, slander, etc.. as others have mentioned. I sin everyday, more or less. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

I believe if Jesus were here today, He would indeed reach out to gay people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I have your answer.

When Jesus died on the cross, all of those regulations given to Moses and the hebrew people were technically eliminated. Not the 10 commandments, just all those other over the top rules given to Moses by God that he gave to his people.

However, the verses against homosexuality are beyond the Jewish regulations and continued after Jesus died. See Roman's 1:26. Therefore, they still apply.

If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Yeah, we've already had the conversation about how Paul's letters don't carry the same weight as Jesus' own sayings, except to a dwindling number of literalists. These are all from Paul, not from Jesus. The New Testament is not like the Quran, where every word is treated equally, as coming directly from God.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I have your answer.

When Jesus died on the cross, all of those regulations given to Moses and the hebrew people were technically eliminated. Not the 10 commandments, just all those other over the top rules given to Moses by God that he gave to his people.

However, the verses against homosexuality are beyond the Jewish regulations and continued after Jesus died. See Roman's 1:26. Therefore, they still apply.

If we are going to rely on the NT as the basis for what is moral and immoral perhaps you could comment on the following also in the NT and whether we are bound to follow them:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I have your answer.

When Jesus died on the cross, all of those regulations given to Moses and the hebrew people were technically eliminated. Not the 10 commandments, just all those other over the top rules given to Moses by God that he gave to his people.

However, the verses against homosexuality are beyond the Jewish regulations and continued after Jesus died. See Roman's 1:26. Therefore, they still apply.

and where did you find this answer?

+1. There are a couple of things about this that suggest the writer doesn't understand Christianity, and I'm not just referring to the Romans bit.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I have your answer.

When Jesus died on the cross, all of those regulations given to Moses and the hebrew people were technically eliminated. Not the 10 commandments, just all those other over the top rules given to Moses by God that he gave to his people.

However, the verses against homosexuality are beyond the Jewish regulations and continued after Jesus died. See Roman's 1:26. Therefore, they still apply.

and where did you find this answer?