Gay Or Homosexual

[KingJ]

The OP title should read "GAY OR HOMOSEXUAL OR SODOMITE", not just gay or homosexual. The reason being, gay and homosexual in this day are synonyms, but "sodomite" has a different meaning. This is seen in the NKJV that the OP quotes on 1 Cor. 6:9, and I'll include the Greek words:

NKJV "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakos/homosexuals, nor arsenokoites/sodomites",

It is obvious that the totally different words in the Greek are recognized as different, and the English used to translate them are likewise different in meaning. The NKJV is a fundamentalist/evangelical version. The NASB95 is likewise fundamentalist/evangelical and it is revealing to compare the two, and I'll again include the Greek:

NASB95"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakos/effeminate, nor arsenokoites/homosexuals"

The 1946 RSV, a liberal translation was the first English version to use the word "homosexuals" and in the 1971 RSV Edition, the word "homosexuals" was removed and has not reappeared in the 1989 NRSV or the 2021 NRSVue. In the UK, the 1989 Revised English Bible removed the adjective "homosexual" found in the 1970 New English Bible, as it was also a misleading translation.

The NKJV & NASB were eager to condemn gays, but they could not agree on what word to translate as "homosexuals". The NASB arsenokoites and the NKJV malakos exposes the bias in the translations.

The word and concept "homosexual" first appeared in Germany in 1869 and came into American English about 1900. Many have Bible software that has the 1611/1769 KJV and the 1828 Webster's Dictionary of English. The KJV, RV and ASV all kept the same wording in 1 Cor. 6:9 and I'll quote the ASV -

"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor arsenokoiktes/abusers of themselves with men" (1Cor 6:9 ASV). * From the 1828 Webster's

"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace."

The 1828 Webster's clearly equates the word "sodomite" with abuse, violence and rape. If you go to the Sodom record you'll see in Gen. 19:9 that the people of Sodom attempted rape, but the angels stopped them. Many Bibles with cross references will guide one to Judges -

"As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain base fellows, beset the house round about, beating at the door; and they spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into my house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a virgin, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not any such folly. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man laid hold on his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light." (Judg 19:22-26 ASV)*The record continues on...

If you seek the sexual sin of Sodom, it was violence, attempted rape, and the similar account in the Judges shows this is the real Biblical meaning of sodomy and sodomite. To call a gay male a sodomite is not accurate, and it is derogatory; from Merriam-Webster: "sodomite -> used as a term of abuse and disparagement for a gay person"

There are born again young men who happen to love their own sex, and the fundamentalist/evangelical churches in their fervor to condemn the LGBTQ+, have driven them out of their churches. They either go to very liberal churches like the Episcopal, or they drop out of church altogether. There is no condemnation in the entire Bible that condemns a male who is in a same-sex relationship, and the churches should study to see how to give support to these young men. The shallow studies the churches present to condemn all gay relationships, will come back on them one day, maybe on the last day. I'm old enough to have seen the hate-filled homophobia grow from the 1960s on to today in the conservative churches. I do not expect to see any agreement on this Forum, but it will be of help to a family who is dealing with this complex situation if they happen upon this thread.

As with your Calvinistic posts, what a load of croc!! You are Googling biased / pro homosexual exegesis of scripture.

The Holy Spirit does clearly not talk to you! and you have no fear of being a false teacher! This is now the second bastardisation of scripture you have performed on a material matter! If I were you, I would be terrified of the day I will have to meet God on a one-on-one basis, especially after being accused of grossly misinterpreting His word and not rescinding!!

Greek Words For Homosexual Behavior​

There are two different Greek words that describe homosexual behavior in 1 Corinthians 6:9. These two words are malakos and arsenokoites. The Greek word malakos refers to the passive male partner in the homosexual act. The NASB translates this word as ''effeminate''. The NET Bible translates malakos as “passive homosexual partners” because the root word has the idea of soft or gentle (Matthew 11:8; Luke 7:25).1 This Greek word is also translated as soft or fancy homosexual, or a passive or receiving male partner in homosexual intercourse act.2 Thus malakos plays the same role a female would in a heterosexual relationship. The NIV blurs malakos and arsenokoites together when it combines the words into “nor men who have sex with men.” Here is the NIV’s less than accurate translation.

. . . Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)

The NKJV translates malakos as “homosexuals” and arsenokoites as sodomites.

The Term Sodomite​

The NASB translates arsenokoites as “homosexuals.” The NET Bible translates the Greek word as “practicing homosexuals.” That is, malakos is the partner receiving the sexual act and arsenokoites is the active partner performing the act who inserts his xxxxx.

The New King James Version (NKJV) translates the Greek word aresnokoites as “Sodomites.” That is, aresnokoites is defined as the “active male partner in homosexual intercourse”3 and “one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite.”4 Consequently, the NKJV translated arsenokoites as sodomite.” This is an acceptable translation. Aresnokoites also appears in 1 Timothy 1:10.

In summary, the malakos refers to the passive male partner in the homosexual act and arsenokoites is the male partner who inserts his xxxxx into the passive partner. The word sodomite appears in other translations in the Old Testament. A sodomite is one who practices something that God has explicitly described as sin.

What is the biblical definition of sodomite?

The term sodomite is related to the ancient city of Sodom and to the sexual behavior that occurred in the city.

www.neverthirsty.org

 

[Twistie]

Is it natural?
No.
God created man and woman, and although in Christ Jesus there is no distinction between male and female, sinful behavior persists. And man laying with man, as is woman with woman, or both with beasts is sinful behavior. Outside of marriage, you then can have a natural acceptable act between a man & woman, done in which it is now sin!

No matter how you want to twist it, to accommodate the current mores of the day, the behavior in question is sinful. We believe that sodomy is unnatural, anal, act of sex. This is not love, or to be confused with love. This is an act that does not produce anything, but sexual gratification, nor can it do otherwise. The effeminate now can easily include the "Trans" too, as they are identified in these days. Not acceptable.

Argue it as much as you want, but to say that now all of sudden due to some great insight, it's now okay, because linguistically, we believe it to be something else, so that as a Christian it is excused through Christ Jesus...makes such thoughts/behaviors still an abomination to God. It's the devil's work, no different than in the Garden of Eden. You can do whatever you want and be like God! Anathema!

For those who have the proclivity of any sinful behavior, being a Christian does not say its okay now to do what otherwise is seen as a sin! Again, Anathema to the one who would lead others astray to sin under the guise of it being acceptable to God because you believe in His Son Jesus Christ who died on the Cross with the weight of the very sins you proclaim are otherwise for the sake of "love" now okay to do!

To use Galatians 3:28 to justify this behavior, again is anathema! Do you forget that positionally the husband (man) is set above the wife (woman)! In Christ Jesus, we are all equal when it comes to salvation, not as a justification for sinful conduct.

Even though in this perverse society found in this world, you can find man marrying man, and women marrying amongst themselves as well, and it is seen as being fine and dandy to do! Not so for those in Christ Jesus who continue to practice sin, without repentance!

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who remains in Him sins [continually;] no one who sins [continually] has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who has been born of God practices sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin [continually,] because he has been born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother [and sister.] 1 John 3:4-10 NASB20

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/

I'm trying to figure out is he trying to say?? Is he trying to imply that one don't have to repent??

w⁠(⁠°⁠ｏ⁠°⁠)⁠w

 

[Dylan569]

It was almost 50 years ago when I came to realize that using a Study Bible was only giving a man or men's opinions. It became clear that men have biases, prejudices, and are not infallible. So to solve this problem, I ordered a small Cambridge Bible with text only, no maps, notes, introductions or any ideas of man other than the KJV translators. This was before the PC, so I for years studied nightly, tracing the Greek words of the NT. I used the Young's Analytical Concordance and sought to avoid man's opinions as much as possible. I used the long legal yellow pads and made notes of my studies for years. It was then that I began to purchase theology textbooks and commentaries. I had my foundational studies so I could better judge the writings of men. I sought to the best of my ability, in prayerful study, to arrive at what God's unvarnished word said. I am going to give an example of how I approach this on a key word in the gay debate, malakos, translated "effeminate" (1 Cor 6:9) in the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT, etc. But modern translations insist that is a word of sexual conduct.

Malakos is used four times in the NT, the three times other than 1 Cor. 6:9 are:
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft/malakos raiment? behold, they that wear soft/malakos clothing are in kings' houses." (Matt 11:8 KJV)
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft/malakos raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts." (Luke 7:25 KJV)
Nothing in those two verses comes close to meaning any type of sexual conduct.

We can also study malakos in the Septuagint, the Greek OT so often quoted in the NT. They occur as follow:
"In long-suffering is prosperity to kings, and a soft/malakos tongue breaks the bones." (Prov 25:15 LXXE)
"The words of cunning knaves are soft/malakos; but they smite even to the inmost parts of the bowels." (Prov 26:22 LXXE)
Again, not a hint of sexual conduct in the LXX usage.

The word malakos is an adjective, the related noun is malakia and it is found three times in the NT, and in the KJV, translated as "disease" each time: Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 10:1.

Comparing Scripture to Scripture, I see no way to invent some form of homosexuality in the word! But what about some Greek scholars in the past? Yes, there were some in the past who tried to make the word mean a "catamite", a boy-prostitute.

From Heinrich Meyer Critical and Exegetical NT 19th century
μαλακοί] effeminates, commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites (molles) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers.

Expositor's Greek New Testament, late 19th century
μαλακοί, soft, voluptuous, appears in this connexion to signify general addiction to sins of the flesh; lexical ground is wanting for the sense of pathici, suggested to some interpreters by the following word and by the use of molles in Latin.

Cambridge Greek NT for Schools and Colleges, late 19th century
μαλακοί, effeminate, i.e. self-indulgent. See Arist. Nic. Eth. VII. 7, ὁ δὲ περὶ λύπας μαλακός, ὁ δὲ καρτερικός, and again, ἡ τρυφὴ μαλακία τίς ἐστιν.

Keep in mind, homosexuality is a word and concept from 1869 Germany and it came into English around 1900. The first English NT to use "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6:9 was the 1946 RSV, and in the revision of 1971 the word "homosexuals" was removed. The later mainline translations continue to avoid using the modern, sexual word of homosexuals because it plainly does not fit the 1st century Greek NT. As seen in the earlier Greek reference works, they do not even equate malakos with the word "catamites", which is shown as "figuratively" in Strong's. The Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon of classical Greek gives the meaning of μᾰλᾰκός, malakos. Read for yourself online: μαλακός - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

Nowhere in that very long list of definitions do you find the slightest hint of sexual conduct as the meaning! The modern fundamentalist/evangelical translations can insist all they wish to make the word malakos mean some form of homosexual conduct, but I cannot find any reason whatsoever to believe them. Has the church Christ created in the 1st century, gone 1900 years without understanding the meaning of malakos? That would be absurd. The ASV1901 translation is the very accurate, and the safe Bible for families who have a member who is gay.

 

[KingJ]

It was almost 50 years ago when I came to realize that using a Study Bible was only giving a man or men's opinions. It became clear that men have biases, prejudices, and are not infallible. So to solve this problem, I ordered a small Cambridge Bible with text only, no maps, notes, introductions or any ideas of man other than the KJV translators. This was before the PC, so I for years studied nightly, tracing the Greek words of the NT. I used the Young's Analytical Concordance and sought to avoid man's opinions as much as possible. I used the long legal yellow pads and made notes of my studies for years. It was then that I began to purchase theology textbooks and commentaries. I had my foundational studies so I could better judge the writings of men. I sought to the best of my ability, in prayerful study, to arrive at what God's unvarnished word said. I am going to give an example of how I approach this on a key word in the gay debate, malakos, translated "effeminate" (1 Cor 6:9) in the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT, etc. But modern translations insist that is a word of sexual conduct.

Malakos is used four times in the NT, the three times other than 1 Cor. 6:9 are:
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft/malakos raiment? behold, they that wear soft/malakos clothing are in kings' houses." (Matt 11:8 KJV)
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft/malakos raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts." (Luke 7:25 KJV)
Nothing in those two verses comes close to meaning any type of sexual conduct.

We can also study malakos in the Septuagint, the Greek OT so often quoted in the NT. They occur as follow:
"In long-suffering is prosperity to kings, and a soft/malakos tongue breaks the bones." (Prov 25:15 LXXE)
"The words of cunning knaves are soft/malakos; but they smite even to the inmost parts of the bowels." (Prov 26:22 LXXE)
Again, not a hint of sexual conduct in the LXX usage.

The word malakos is an adjective, the related noun is malakia and it is found three times in the NT, and in the KJV, translated as "disease" each time: Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 10:1.

Comparing Scripture to Scripture, I see no way to invent some form of homosexuality in the word! But what about some Greek scholars in the past? Yes, there were some in the past who tried to make the word mean a "catamite", a boy-prostitute.

From Heinrich Meyer Critical and Exegetical NT 19th century
μαλακοί] effeminates, commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites (molles) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers.

Expositor's Greek New Testament, late 19th century
μαλακοί, soft, voluptuous, appears in this connexion to signify general addiction to sins of the flesh; lexical ground is wanting for the sense of pathici, suggested to some interpreters by the following word and by the use of molles in Latin.

Cambridge Greek NT for Schools and Colleges, late 19th century
μαλακοί, effeminate, i.e. self-indulgent. See Arist. Nic. Eth. VII. 7, ὁ δὲ περὶ λύπας μαλακός, ὁ δὲ καρτερικός, and again, ἡ τρυφὴ μαλακία τίς ἐστιν.

Keep in mind, homosexuality is a word and concept from 1869 Germany and it came into English around 1900. The first English NT to use "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6:9 was the 1946 RSV, and in the revision of 1971 the word "homosexuals" was removed. The later mainline translations continue to avoid using the modern, sexual word of homosexuals because it plainly does not fit the 1st century Greek NT. As seen in the earlier Greek reference works, they do not even equate malakos with the word "catamites", which is shown as "figuratively" in Strong's. The Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon of classical Greek gives the meaning of μᾰλᾰκός, malakos. Read for yourself online: μαλακός - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

Nowhere in that very long list of definitions do you find the slightest hint of sexual conduct as the meaning! The modern fundamentalist/evangelical translations can insist all they wish to make the word malakos mean some form of homosexual conduct, but I cannot find any reason whatsoever to believe them. Has the church Christ created in the 1st century, gone 1900 years without understanding the meaning of malakos? That would be absurd. The ASV1901 translation is the very accurate, and the safe Bible for families who have a member who is gay.

You are using this forum as a message board for your tripe. You are not dealing with scripture posters are giving you. If I was a mod I would ban you. You show no effort in your heretical posts.

 

[Dylan569]

There will be some gay Christians for after being brow-beat with religious homophobia, cannot shake the feeling, or the belief, that their gayness is sinful. If that guilt cannot be removed, there are writings to consider in their Christian life.

"But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good. So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise. But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death." (Rom 7:16-25; 8:1-2 ASV) *Don't let anyone try to tell you Paul is using the present tense to speak of himself prior to the new birth!

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647, from section on Original Sin -
"This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin." This is repeated in the 1689 Baptist Confession and the 2000 Confession of the SBC

From the Puritan Thomas Brooks, in Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices -
"God has nowhere engaged himself by any particular promise, that souls converted and united to Christ shall not fall again and again into the same sin after conversion. I cannot find in the whole book of God where he has promised any such strength or power against this or that particular sin, as that the soul should be forever, in this life, put out of a possibility of falling again and again into the same sins. And where God has not a mouth to speak, I must not have a heart to believe. God will graciously pardon those sins to his people, which he will not in this life totally subdue in his people. I have never seen a promise in Scripture, which says that when our sorrow and grief has been so great, or so much, for this or that sin—that then God will preserve us from ever falling into the same sin. The sight of such a promise would be as life from the dead to many a precious soul, who desires nothing more than to keep close to Christ, and fears nothing more than backsliding from Christ." from page 106

https://www.preachtheword.com/bookstore/remedies.pdf

From the late Dr. Lewis B. Smedes, Fuller Theological Seminary -
"I think that homosexual people are not responsible for their sexual orientation toward loving people of their own gender.
I think that, as a class, homosexual people are as moral, as spiritual, as decent and good, as creative, and as much in need of the grace of God as heterosexual people are.
I think that homosexuality is not the sexual orientation that God intended in creation. It is a genetic lapse. It is nature gone awry. There is tragedy in it. And homosexual people are called to live as morally within their tragedy as the rest of us are called to live within whatever may be ours.
I think that homosexual people merit the same rights and bear the same responsibilities within society that anyone else does.
I think that, if celibacy is not possible, it is better for homosexual people to live together in committed monogamous relationships of love than not. Homosexual partnerships that are committed offer the best moral option available." page 243 of "Sex for Christians" Revised Edition 1994 ... Dr. Smedes (1921-2002) was professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California

A final word, there will be some who seek out a "Christian psychologist", and that could be an unwise move. Such a counselor probably gives lousy psychological instruction and lousy theological advice. Seek out a qualified psychologist or theologian, but do not mix the two in one counselor.

I'll let my posts stand as written, and the readers can judge for themselves if my posts on this topic are sound biblically. I'll not spend time answering the various challenges raised, because from what I see, my posts have already answered them. The hateful and nasty replies are not worth my time to respond, period. My posts are for that family who is devastated spiritually by a family member who is gay, and they need some scholarly input to help them understand. My prayer is that God the Holy Spirit uses the posts for his purposes, giving some comfort for those in need.

 

[Dylan569]

I'm trying to figure out is he trying to say?? Is he trying to imply that one don't have to repent??

w⁠(⁠°⁠ｏ⁠°⁠)⁠w

I do not believe there has been a man in all history who did not have some sin in his sexual life over which he needed to repent! This means of all sexual persuasions. Take David for instance, a man after God's own heart!

 

[KingJ]

There will be some gay Christians for after being brow-beat with religious homophobia, cannot shake the feeling, or the belief, that their gayness is sinful. If that guilt cannot be removed, there are writings to consider in their Christian life.

There is no such thing as a gay Christian!

To go 100% against the purpose for which your body was created is 100% pulling your middle finger to your Creator. Doing the complete opposite of what Jesus says is required from us in Matt 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

The ONLY people that are exempt and still able to find mercy with God are non-Christians and or atheists who do not believe in any creator god.

This is 'common sense 101'.

You are misquoting scripture like the devil and becoming guilty of potentially stumbling the weak.

A verse like Matt 18:6 comes to mind for you:

Matt 18:6 If anyone causes one of these little ones those who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

 

[KingJ]

I do not believe there has been a man in all history who did not have some sin in his sexual life over which he needed to repent! This means of all sexual persuasions. Take David for instance, a man after God's own heart!

What a silly synopsis of sin.

In the OT, there were degrees of punishment for certain sins. Same thing with sexual sins. Fornication got you 100 lashes unless you got married. Lying with a man as you do a woman, got you the death penalty.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with man as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.

To teach that homosexuality is just the same as any other sin is demented and extreme error.

Jesus explains to us in Matt 5:28 that adulterous thoughts are a sin, but than, four verses down, in Matt 5:32, He explains that we must not divorce unless their is actual adultery.

Living in extreme sin as a Christian is evidence that you are not a Christian. When Paul said he was battling with sin in Rom 7:15, HE WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE SIN HE PREVIOUSLY BATTLED WITH, WHICH WAS MURDERING CHRISTIANS.

If any person continues in a sin that God ordained a graphic and violent death by stoning for, they are most assuredly not a Christian and 100% en route to hell. SO TO ARE ALL THOSE WHO APPROVE OF AND ENCOURAGE SUCH SINFUL LIFESTYLE.

Rom 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

-------------------------

Paul says we can sit and eat at the table and have a friendly chat with anyone homosexual, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT CALL OR THINK OF THEMSELVES AS A CHRISTIAN! 1 Cor 5:11

 

[Dave M]

Living in extreme sin as a Christian

interesting you say extreme any scripture??

what is a example of not extreme sin?

 

[B-A-C]

There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.

... for those who are in Christ Jesus... do you know what the Bible says the test is to see if you are in Christ Jesus?

the readers can judge for themselves if my posts on this topic are sound biblically.

We already have. You'll have to do better than.. does the Bible really say.."
The oldest trick in the book is literally.. "did God really say..?" ( Gen 3:1 )

 

[Twistie]

I do not believe there has been a man in all history who did not have some sin in his sexual life over which he needed to repent! This means of all sexual persuasions. Take David for instance, a man after God's own hea

I do not believe there has been a man in all history who did not have some sin in his sexual life over which he needed to repent! This means of all sexual persuasions. Take David for instance, a man after God's own heart!

Ok nnnn what's that gotta do with repentance??..

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. 25Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Tet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

(⁠ﾉﾟ⁠0ﾟ⁠)⁠ﾉ⁠~

 

[Twistie]

Only one in the Bible that says God didn't mean what He says is that slimy serpent.. j s

ಠ⁠ ⁠ل͟⁠ ⁠ಠ

 

[KingJ]

interesting you say extreme any scripture??

Sure. But to be honest I am getting so tired of repeating myself to you. You have asked so many times and each time I give you them, you run from discussion. You need to understand that when you teach that all sin is the same, you are teaching a half truth. Half-truths are very dangerous. In this case, believing all sin is equal can make one living in a grievous sin think they are saved as long as they believe in Jesus. This is most certainly not true. Christians battle with what Catholics call venial sins. What Paul alludes to in Rom 7:15. Nobody would have listened to Paul if he was still murdering Christians. This a 'DUH' fact. Please try understanding that.

-------------------

In the OT we know the degree of the sin by the punishment scripture / God ordained. A read of Deuteronomy and Leviticus shows us that there were punishments for differing sins. Warnings, flogging, excommunication, death by stoning, death by fire. Elders would gather, judge the sin and execute punishment according to the sin. I could post all the scriptures, but if you don't know this, I doubt you have ever read the OT. I can only assume you are trolling.

There are some interesting passages that pop out in the OT. For example, Gen 18:20 states that the sins of Sodom were grievous. Gen 15:16 states that the sin of the Amorites was not yet full measure.

In the NT we see a couple of instances where sins are isolated from sins.

1 - In 1 Cor 5 Paul addresses a 'brethren so called'' guilty of grievous sin. 1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife.

2 - Matt 5:28 Jesus says thoughts of adultery are a sin, but in Matt 5:32 He says only divorce if their is actual adultery.

3 - In Rom 7:15 Paul says he battles with sin, we know that this was not the sin of murder as he stopped murdering Christians.

4. In 1 Cor 6:1-9 Paul rebukes Christians who cannot judge matters better than the unsaved. IE Sin and punishment.

what is a example of not extreme sin?

In the OT, it would be all the sins that did not result in a capital punishment. Very important to note that God does not change Num 23:19. If He ordained capital punishment for certain sins, don't think you are enroute to heaven if you continue in such today.

In the NT, we have one straight from Jesus in Matt 5:28, contrast it with Matt 5:32.

Now, Dave, please, grasp the fact that being unable to discern degrees of sin is as bad as you standing at the pulpit and teaching that all can divorce if their spouse has ever thought of someone else in an inappropriate manner. Then, ask yourself if Jesus will be impressed with your half-truth after He specifically stated what He did in Matt 5:32.

----------------------------

Sometimes I cannot believe how ignorant Christians are. I do like the fact that Paul rebuked Christians who can't judge matters in 1 Cor 6:1-9.

I honestly feel that some need to watch a stoning. When you ''SEE'' that God ordained a GRAPHIC and VIOLENT death by stoning for some sinners, I PROMISE you that you will REMEMBER the sin that warranted such a punishment.

 

[Rhema]

Can you tell us of a Bible commentary prior to the 20th century, that describes the Greek word arsenokoites in a way that matches the meaning of "homosexuals" in our day?

How about the actual Bible itself? The Vulgate is centuries old, and way prior to the 20th century.

masculorum (male - LINK) concubitoribus (bedfellows - LINK)
[Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary; Tufts University]



ALL that education, all those books, and no wisdom.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

.... WHICH WAS MURDERING CHRISTIANS.

Just wondering... where is there any scripture or support for the claim that Paul murdered Christians?

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[KingJ]

Just wondering... where is there any scripture or support for the claim that Paul murdered Christians?

Thanks,
Rhema

Your post is so silly, it does not deserve a response.

This poor forum, you, @Dylan569 and @Brightfame52 all on one site. Imagine that.

 

[Christ4Ever]

"I think that homosexual people are not responsible for their sexual orientation toward loving people of their own gender.

"loving" - not that I know Greek, which "loving" are you talking about here in the Greek?

I think that, as a class, homosexual people are as moral, as spiritual, as decent and good, as creative, and as much in need of the grace of God as heterosexual people are.

Will any of that save one be they either?

I think that homosexuality is not the sexual orientation that God intended in creation. It is a genetic lapse. It is nature gone awry. There is tragedy in it. And homosexual people are called to live as morally within their tragedy as the rest of us are called to live within whatever may be ours.
I think that homosexual people merit the same rights and bear the same responsibilities within society that anyone else does.
I think that, if celibacy is not possible, it is better for homosexual people to live together in committed monogamous relationships of love than not. Homosexual partnerships that are committed offer the best moral option available." page 243 of "Sex for Christians" Revised Edition 1994 ... Dr. Smedes (1921-2002) was professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California

Unintended consequences of sin? or as this writer you quote mentions above as a "genetic lapse".

"...best moral option available." - so abstinence is not one of them or even change, to carry one's cross daily? Keeping in mind that you are not alone in this sin struggle, as this professor should know and say (maybe later in his writings), you have the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem showing the "love" of Christ to a sinner, or one who is "gay". I'm sure there were more, but there was one who was effeminate that went to the church I attend. One could have said he was gay, but unless you asked, which I didn't one would not know. He was active in the church, and it's a good size church so blending in was not a problem. His mother and him sat close by to me, so I could observe him rather easily. Sadly, there was a married man, whose wife I worked with but did not know, who had the proclivity (found out later) for being homosexual. I caught them so to speak in a lie of behavior but turned it over to God. You have to keep your lies straight or you'll eventually get found out, which is unnecessary if you're going to be honest. Their actions led them to leaving the church, and divorce for the married one who also had 3 children. Both were believers in Jesus, and it was not the church that booted them, but their own conviction and that they wanted to stay together that created the problems. Of course, they didn't stay together and they themselves separated, as I later found out. Flesh is weak.

Some might argue that society, the church, or religiosity are to blame for the issues that occurred here. However, I believe, as do the scriptures, that it is sin. Dealing with sin is a challenge, and even with the help of Christ Jesus, it can remain a burden or a cross that one must bear, though it is not held to account. Acknowledging sin, repenting, or not making excuses for it is essential for change. Without actively seeking assistance through Christ Jesus, change is unlikely to occur. That is the problem here. The more one excuses/ignores/justifies sinful behavior, the likelihood of lasting change happening is next to nil.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

Your post is so silly, it does not deserve a response.

This poor forum, you, @Dylan569 and @Brightfame52 all on one site. Imagine that.

Meaning that you KNOW there is no scriptural proclamation that Paul Murdered Christians, but you're too proud to admit it?

You made a claim. Like it or not, your claim is wrong. Otherwise prove it.

Rhema
(Or prove me wrong. Here's your chance!)

 

[Rhema]

"loving" - not that I know Greek, which "loving" are you talking about here in the Greek?

Agape
Phileo
Eros
Storge
Philautia
Xenia
???

 

[Rhema]

Without actively seeking assistance through Christ Jesus, change is unlikely to occur. That is the problem here. The more one excuses/ignores/justifies sinful behavior, the likelihood of lasting change happening is next to nil.

Well that is what the Holy Spirit is for...

In Peace,
Rhema