Homosexuality and the Torah -and- the Christian NT

[Newby]

Because it's not true. Jeshua was so very specific about many, many, many things in your New Testament, but in terms of Homosexual acts, he was totally silent. And then for you to lump all of that into one carte blanche statement is, well, cheap and taudry, and I think it doesn't do Jeshuah justice.

What a shame.

Care to comment on what was actually said instead of repeating the same old line? He was totally silent on sex outside of marriage? He was totally silent on what marriage was? Try again...

There are many things Jesus was not explicit about.
What we know with a certainty from your avatar is you have a peculiar fascination with beefy dudes with long hair.

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Care to comment on what was actually said instead of repeating the same old line? He was totally silent on sex outside of marriage? He was totally silent on what marriage was? Try again...

There are many things Jesus was not explicit about.
What we know with a certainty from your avatar is you have a peculiar fascination with beefy dudes with long hair.

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

You mean a comment from four months ago, and that still bothers you?

Kinda small in thinking, what?

 

[Newby]

There are many things Jesus was not explicit about.
What we know with a certainty from your avatar is you have a peculiar fascination with beefy dudes with long hair.

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

You mean a comment from four months ago, and that still bothers you?

Kinda small in thinking, what?

Comment from four months ago? How about the comment from four minutes ago? Can you read? I suggest doing so.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

You mean a comment from four months ago, and that still bothers you?

Kinda small in thinking, what?

Comment from four months ago? How about the comment from four minutes ago? Can you read? I suggest doing so.

I did not comment on your avatar at all today. Feeling well?

The comment came from brucebeat, not from me.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Care to comment on what was actually said instead of repeating the same old line? He was totally silent on sex outside of marriage? He was totally silent on what marriage was? Try again...

There are many things Jesus was not explicit about.
What we know with a certainty from your avatar is you have a peculiar fascination with beefy dudes with long hair.

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

Perhaps, but he made no comments about homosexuality, even if the marriage of two men was not on his radar. Marriage was an ownership contract then. Essentially a father was selling his daughter to the husband. Women were chatel, men were not, so the idea of marriage of two men would not have made sense. That does not address the sexuality or love interest between two men. Jesus is silent on the subject.
Is it the pecs that get you?

 

[Statistikhengst]

There are many things Jesus was not explicit about.
What we know with a certainty from your avatar is you have a peculiar fascination with beefy dudes with long hair.

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

Perhaps, but he made no comments about homosexuality, even if the marriage of two men was not on his radar. Marriage was an ownership contract then. Essentially a father was selling his daughter to the husband. Women were chatel, men were not, so the idea of marriage of two men would not have made sense. That does not address the sexuality or love interest between two men. Jesus is silent on the subject.
Is it the pecs that get you?

Indeed. In Ivrit, the marriage contract is called the "K'tubah" and it is so binding, the two most important signatures are not that of the bride or the groom, but rather, that of the two respective witnesses (one for the bride, one for the groom), who vouch with their lives for the veracity of the identity of the two soon-to-be newlyweds. The K'tubah clearly marks out how much the dowry is going to be, plus any other perks. Even the conditions for a possible DIVORCE are already indicated in the K'tubah.

So, during Yeshuah's time, marrying had very little to do with love or even family in the sense that we understand the two terms.

And I notice that Newby has not come back since his false accusation.

 

[Newby]

You mean a comment from four months ago, and that still bothers you?

Kinda small in thinking, what?

Comment from four months ago? How about the comment from four minutes ago? Can you read? I suggest doing so.

I did not comment on your avatar at all today. Feeling well?

The comment came from brucebeat, not from me.

Exactly! You're getting there! I wasn't talking to you, nor did I quote you, so your comment ("You mean a comment from four months ago, and that still bothers you?") to me came from outta no where dude. Get with the program already!

 

[thebrucebeat]

Comment from four months ago? How about the comment from four minutes ago? Can you read? I suggest doing so.

I did not comment on your avatar at all today. Feeling well?

The comment came from brucebeat, not from me.

Exactly! You're getting there! I wasn't talking to you, nor did I quote you, so your comment ("You mean a comment from four months ago, and that still bothers you?") to me came from outta no where dude. Get with the program already!

Ah, the oft displayed love and charity of the devout.
The Fruits of the Spirit describe the traits we should see in the man indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Since you reject them with your online persona, does this indicate you reject the Holy Spirit, or has He rejected you? Your avatar doesn't display a devotion to these qualities either.
Maybe it's the tight spandex shorts?

 

[Newby]

There are many things Jesus was not explicit about.
What we know with a certainty from your avatar is you have a peculiar fascination with beefy dudes with long hair.

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

Perhaps, but he made no comments about homosexuality, even if the marriage of two men was not on his radar. Marriage was an ownership contract then. Essentially a father was selling his daughter to the husband. Women were chatel, men were not, so the idea of marriage of two men would not have made sense. That does not address the sexuality or love interest between two men. Jesus is silent on the subject.
Is it the pecs that get you?

Sex outside of marriage was a sin, plainly stated so by Jesus Christ. Marriage was affirmed and specifically described by God, again affirmed by Jesus Christ. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Any kind of sex outside of holy matrimony is a sin. End of story.

What is it with you and my avatar? Troy isn't gay, he's married, and a Christian, so I'm afraid he's off limits my friend.

 

[Newby]

I did not comment on your avatar at all today. Feeling well?

The comment came from brucebeat, not from me.

Exactly! You're getting there! I wasn't talking to you, nor did I quote you, so your comment ("You mean a comment from four months ago, and that still bothers you?") to me came from outta no where dude. Get with the program already!

Ah, the oft displayed love and charity of the devout.
The Fruits of the Spirit describe the traits we should see in the man indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Since you reject them with your online persona, does this indicate you reject the Holy Spirit, or has He rejected you? Your avatar doesn't display a devotion to these qualities either.
Maybe it's the tight spandex shorts?

You can quit your little 'hypocritical christian' spiel, better than you have tried it, it's old, and it means nothing to me. If you want to debate, then stick to the topic, otherwise find someone else to talk your bullshit too.

Btw, envy isn't becoming...

 

[thebrucebeat]

Exactly! You're getting there! I wasn't talking to you, nor did I quote you, so your comment ("You mean a comment from four months ago, and that still bothers you?") to me came from outta no where dude. Get with the program already!

Ah, the oft displayed love and charity of the devout.
The Fruits of the Spirit describe the traits we should see in the man indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Since you reject them with your online persona, does this indicate you reject the Holy Spirit, or has He rejected you? Your avatar doesn't display a devotion to these qualities either.
Maybe it's the tight spandex shorts?

You can quit your little 'hypocritical christian' spiel, better than you have tried it, it's old, and it means nothing to me. If you want to debate, then stick to the topic, otherwise find someone else to talk your bullshit too.

Btw, envy isn't becoming...

Ignoring Paul's description of the indwelt man in Galatians won't make it go away, and your continued rudeness and coarseness just serves to make my case.
Scripture remains a punch line to you when it demands you part with what you covet in yourself.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

Perhaps, but he made no comments about homosexuality, even if the marriage of two men was not on his radar. Marriage was an ownership contract then. Essentially a father was selling his daughter to the husband. Women were chatel, men were not, so the idea of marriage of two men would not have made sense. That does not address the sexuality or love interest between two men. Jesus is silent on the subject.
Is it the pecs that get you?

Sex outside of marriage was a sin, plainly stated so by Jesus Christ. Marriage was affirmed and specifically described by God, again affirmed by Jesus Christ. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Any kind of sex outside of holy matrimony is a sin. End of story.

What is it with you and my avatar? Troy isn't gay, he's married, and a Christian, so I'm afraid he's off limits my friend.

I didn't say HE was gay. He shows no fascination with you. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite drawn to him.

 

[Newby]

Post # 61 was not responding to you, dumbass, your post 62 was responding to me responding to someone else. I had no clue why you were even repsonding or talking about something from four months ago. Can we get any more clueless?

Care to comment on what was actually said instead of repeating the same old line? He was totally silent on sex outside of marriage? He was totally silent on what marriage was? Try again...

There are many things Jesus was not explicit about.
What we know with a certainty from your avatar is you have a peculiar fascination with beefy dudes with long hair.

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

Post #62 Your post..

There are many things Jesus was not explicit about.
What we know with a certainty from your avatar is you have a peculiar fascination with beefy dudes with long hair.

Sex outside of marriage, and what marriage was were not those things. He was very explicit about both.

Well we know with a certainty from your comment on my avatar that you obviously need to deflect from the debate and change the topic, no surprises there...

You mean a comment from four months ago, and that still bothers you?
Kinda small in thinking, what?

Wtf? Ready to eat cake yet?

 

[Newby]

Perhaps, but he made no comments about homosexuality, even if the marriage of two men was not on his radar. Marriage was an ownership contract then. Essentially a father was selling his daughter to the husband. Women were chatel, men were not, so the idea of marriage of two men would not have made sense. That does not address the sexuality or love interest between two men. Jesus is silent on the subject.
Is it the pecs that get you?

Sex outside of marriage was a sin, plainly stated so by Jesus Christ. Marriage was affirmed and specifically described by God, again affirmed by Jesus Christ. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Any kind of sex outside of holy matrimony is a sin. End of story.

What is it with you and my avatar? Troy isn't gay, he's married, and a Christian, so I'm afraid he's off limits my friend.

I didn't say HE was gay. He shows no fascination with you. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite drawn to him.

Um, did I say he showed any fascination with me? And I'm quite drawn to him? Are you mentally stable?

 

[MHunterB]

i saw it. My response would be similar to yours.

I am for gays living open and free and fullfilled lives. I have no problem with them marrying at all. In fact, most would call me a str8 ally.

But i don't want all of the lifestyle thrown in my face and i don't want my 7 year old daughter to have to see any of that stuff until she is old enough to mentally and emotionally process that stuff on her own.

And yes, i did see part of that "agree with me or you're a hater". That is disappointing.

you have now stated that accusation twice, but have provided no citation to make anything but a hollow finger wag. You are stating something you aren't supporting.
If you are really an ally, what are you afraid of your 7 year old seeing?

sick sexual perversion is an ugly,dirty,foul,pathetic abomination!!! You get the idea????

Your obsessing over other people's private sex lives is an ugly, dirty, foul, pathetic abomination. You get the idea????

And your overweening presumption in claiming to speak for GOD is a worse abomination.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Sex outside of marriage was a sin, plainly stated so by Jesus Christ. Marriage was affirmed and specifically described by God, again affirmed by Jesus Christ. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Any kind of sex outside of holy matrimony is a sin. End of story.

What is it with you and my avatar? Troy isn't gay, he's married, and a Christian, so I'm afraid he's off limits my friend.

I didn't say HE was gay. He shows no fascination with you. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite drawn to him.

Um, did I say he showed any fascination with me? And I'm quite drawn to him? Are you mentally stable?

The mentally stable, or at least intellectually capable, would never have made the comment I thought he was gay. No suggestion of that was ever hinted at.
Your interest in him, on the other hand, is clear and obvious.
Is it the stubble? Do you like those rough and ready types?
You are not indwelt by the Spirit and not very bright, it appears.

 

[Newby]

I didn't say HE was gay. He shows no fascination with you. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite drawn to him.

Um, did I say he showed any fascination with me? And I'm quite drawn to him? Are you mentally stable?

The mentally stable, or at least intellectually capable, would never have made the comment I thought he was gay. No suggestion of that was ever hinted at.
Your interest in him, on the other hand, is clear and obvious.
Is it the stubble? Do you like those rough and ready types?
You are not indwelt by the Spirit and not very bright, it appears.

Hateful and insulting, it's all you drones know, it's all you have... I pity you since I recognize it for what it really is.

carry on...

 

[thebrucebeat]

Um, did I say he showed any fascination with me? And I'm quite drawn to him? Are you mentally stable?

The mentally stable, or at least intellectually capable, would never have made the comment I thought he was gay. No suggestion of that was ever hinted at.
Your interest in him, on the other hand, is clear and obvious.
Is it the stubble? Do you like those rough and ready types?
You are not indwelt by the Spirit and not very bright, it appears.

Hateful and insulting, it's all you drones know, it's all you have... I pity you since I recognize it for what it really is.

carry on...

Hateful, insulting...maybe.
Painfully accurate enough for you to ignore...undeniably.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Reach higher, or what's a heaven for?
(I think it's the six-pack!)

 

[Chuckt]

Apologetics Press - ?Jesus Didn?t Condemn Homosexuality?

You beat me to it, I've brought this up several times in other threads, and it always seems to get ignored. Imagine that??

Because it's not true. Jeshua was so very specific about many, many, many things in your New Testament, but in terms of Homosexual acts, he was totally silent. And then for you to lump all of that into one carte blanche statement is, well, cheap and taudry, and I think it doesn't do Jeshuah justice.

What a shame.

Matthew 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

1.of bodies given up to criminal intercourse, because they are as it were members belonging to the harlot's body

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

 

[Newby]

You beat me to it, I've brought this up several times in other threads, and it always seems to get ignored. Imagine that??

Because it's not true. Jeshua was so very specific about many, many, many things in your New Testament, but in terms of Homosexual acts, he was totally silent. And then for you to lump all of that into one carte blanche statement is, well, cheap and taudry, and I think it doesn't do Jeshuah justice.

What a shame.

Matthew 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

1.of bodies given up to criminal intercourse, because they are as it were members belonging to the harlot's body

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

They'll just keep denying unfortunately, even though it's right in front of them. They have eyes that do not see.