Yes, sanctification is the lifelong process by which the believer is made holy, not the one-time occurrence that salvation itself is.
Posted on 1/20 2:51 PM | IP: Logged
Not to derail an interesting thread I wasn't involved in, the question of mine which sparked this was a direct response to the below quote in another thread:
Originally posted by sinatra dore: People sometimes forget that Christ did condemn homosexuality and those other things. As a Christian, I am sometimes guilty of judging the person rather than the action.
The question is not whether homosexuality is considered an abomination (certainly it is, at least in the Old Testament and probably in the New as well). The question is specifically to the above quote. Did Jesus himself ever address homosexuality in any real way. The only thing I'm aware of is at some point him saying he isn't here to change god's law in the Old Testament (though most accept that he did in fact absolve people of the need to adhere to some of the Old Testament, or some such thing).
I was seeking direct confirmation (or otherwise) of the above and not about homosexuality in general.
Sinatra was responding to the below:
Originally posted by PYnole: Condemnation of homosexuals, inter racial relationships, drug addicts, ect is not very Christ like.
I believe we established that Jesus did not directly address miscenigation and drug addiction. I just wanted to confirm entirely that Sinatra's assertion is incorrect in whole.
Posted on 1/23 8:12 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: Not to derail an interesting thread I wasn't involved in, the question of mine which sparked this was a direct response to the below quote in another thread:
Originally posted by sinatra dore: People sometimes forget that Christ did condemn homosexuality and those other things. As a Christian, I am sometimes guilty of judging the person rather than the action.
The question is not whether homosexuality is considered an abomination (certainly it is, at least in the Old Testament and probably in the New as well). The question is specifically to the above quote. Did Jesus himself ever address homosexuality in any real way. The only thing I'm aware of is at some point him saying he isn't here to change god's law in the Old Testament (though most accept that he did in fact absolve people of the need to adhere to some of the Old Testament, or some such thing).
I was seeking direct confirmation (or otherwise) of the above and not about homosexuality in general.
Sinatra was responding to the below:
Originally posted by PYnole: Condemnation of homosexuals, inter racial relationships, drug addicts, ect is not very Christ like.
I believe we established that Jesus did not directly address miscenigation and drug addiction. I just wanted to confirm entirely that Sinatra's assertion is incorrect in whole.
Two quick points.
1) Somewhere I think I did point out Jesus never addresses the issue of homosexuality directly.
2) Surprisingly, I don't think Jesus addressed the issue indirectly either. Jesus statement about the Law is a far more theologically sophisticated response addressing the nature of his mission. Jesus' statement is that,“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved." (Mt. 5: 17-18).
So what exactly is Jesus saying. Simply he embodies in his life and ministry what the law is truly about vs. the Pharisaical pretense of keeping rules to gain God's favor. How would this then apply to homosexual behavior, homosexuality is an altogether different issue, is best seen in John 8 and Jesus' response to the woman caught in adultery. Pharisees say stone her to death on the basis of the law Jesus says I don't condemn you but, paradoxically if you like, go and sin no more. That's a far cry from Jesus declaring homosexuality an "abomination".
NYD you know I love you but gotta keep you from being Christianity's publicist--though you are great for atheism. ;-)
Hope that helps.
Posted on 1/25 9:18 AM | IP: Logged
Thanks VA. Pretty much exactly the content of an answer I was hoping for. As a separate topic, can you expound on that (particular Mt. 5: 17-18 vs. John 8 -- which I'm guessing is "cast the first stone"?) as to why parts of Leviticus are ignored and others insist that other portions should be adhered to?
Probably should be a breakoff thread, as I find it one of the more intriguing questions of Christianity.
This post was edited on 1/25 1:47 PM by NewYorkDore
Posted on 1/25 1:46 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: Thanks VA. Pretty much exactly the content of an answer I was hoping for. As a separate topic, can you expound on that (particular Mt. 5: 17-18 vs. John 8 -- which I'm guessing is "cast the first stone"?) as to why parts of Leviticus are ignored and others insist that other portions should be adhered to?
Probably should be a breakoff thread, as I find it one of the more intriguing questions of Christianity.
This post was edited on 1/25 1:47 PM by NewYorkDore
See if this helps
Some clergymen argue in favor of homosexuality, claiming that Jesus never spoke against it. But is that really so? Jesus Christ declared that God’s Word is truth. (John 17:17) That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality as described at Leviticus 18:22, which reads: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.” Moreover, Jesus listed fornication and adultery among the “wicked things [that] issue forth from within and defile a man.” (Mark 7:21-23) The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that for adultery. It describes all forms of sexual relations outside lawful marriage, including homosexuality. (Jude 7) Jesus Christ also warned his followers not to tolerate any professed Christian teacher who minimizes the seriousness of fornication.?Revelation 1:1; 2:14, 20.
Posted on 1/25 8:40 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by InGold: Some clergymen argue in favor of homosexuality, claiming that Jesus never spoke against it.
Is that really the case? I mean, I don't think you mean they're saying since Jesus didn't speak on it, people should do it. I mean, there's a difference between "didn't say it's an abomination" and "go for it." I've never heard that.
Originally posted by InGold: Jesus Christ declared that God’s Word is truth. (John 17:17) That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality as described at Leviticus 18:22, which reads: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.” Moreover, Jesus listed fornication and adultery among the “wicked things [that] issue forth from within and defile a man.” (Mark 7:21-23) The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that for adultery. It describes all forms of sexual relations outside lawful marriage, including homosexuality. (Jude 7) Jesus Christ also warned his followers not to tolerate any professed Christian teacher who minimizes the seriousness of fornication.?Revelation 1:1; 2:14, 20.
This goes to the second point I'd love to discuss in a separate thread that I'll start. The two points I'll make on that are: a) I don't disagree for a moment that the bible considers homosexuality a sin and calls it an abomination. b) Jesus never specifically addresses homosexuality. Saying I am here to keep god's law is slightly broader than saying don't sin which is slightly broader than saying don't fornicateion (and I think the English definition of fornication also includes homosexual sex -- at least in all but a few states where it is a part of lawful marriage) which is most certainly broader than specific homosexual sex.
The question was not whether Jesus would approve of homosexual sex or homosexual love/feelings. The question was a specific query as to whether Jesus directly addressed any of the things SinatraDore said he did. The answer is indisputable in that he did not speak on these.
OK, starting a separate thread.
Posted on 1/25 10:57 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
Originally posted by InGold: Some clergymen argue in favor of homosexuality, claiming that Jesus never spoke against it.
Is that really the case? I mean, I don't think you mean they're saying since Jesus didn't speak on it, people should do it. I mean, there's a difference between "didn't say it's an abomination" and "go for it." I've never heard that.
Originally posted by InGold: Jesus Christ declared that God’s Word is truth. (John 17:17) That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality as described at Leviticus 18:22, which reads: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.” Moreover, Jesus listed fornication and adultery among the “wicked things [that] issue forth from within and defile a man.” (Mark 7:21-23) The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that for adultery. It describes all forms of sexual relations outside lawful marriage, including homosexuality. (Jude 7) Jesus Christ also warned his followers not to tolerate any professed Christian teacher who minimizes the seriousness of fornication.?Revelation 1:1; 2:14, 20.
This goes to the second point I'd love to discuss in a separate thread that I'll start. The two points I'll make on that are: a) I don't disagree for a moment that the bible considers homosexuality a sin and calls it an abomination. b) Jesus never specifically addresses homosexuality. Saying I am here to keep god's law is slightly broader than saying don't sin which is slightly broader than saying don't fornicateion (and I think the English definition of fornication also includes homosexual sex -- at least in all but a few states where it is a part of lawful marriage) which is most certainly broader than specific homosexual sex.
The question was not whether Jesus would approve of homosexual sex or homosexual love/feelings. The question was a specific query as to whether Jesus directly addressed any of the things SinatraDore said he did. The answer is indisputable in that he did not speak on these.
OK, starting a separate thread.
That is just not true.
What do you expect, for a man this did not exist to be specific?
That is just not true. To expect a list of rules in Christianity would lead to disappointment and was not what even the Mosiac law was all about. Does that mean that Jesus did not attend to all the things you ask about> Absolutely not, because he did. True Christians live by principle not a list of rules.
For instance. By the same thinking men have concluded that there is nothing in the Bible about smoking. Not true. Does it address it specifically as in "you must not smoke"....no this is a relatively modern phenomenon ( everyday tobacco use ) but adequately covered by both the law covenant, Jesus and the Greek scriptures. Jesus quoted from the only part of the Bible that was available to him and his audience at the time when he said....again quoting from the Hebrew portion, you must love your neighbor as yourself. This is a no brainer. It is called living by Principle. And then there is 2 Co 7:1 Therefore, since we have these promises, beloved ones, let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s fear. Also there is much about becoming a slave to anything like drugs and tobacco. A Christian would refrain from smoking tobacco.
About prejudice like forbidding inner-racial marriage: principle...
First-century Jews had strong feelings against the Samaritans, a people living in an area between Judea and Galilee. On one occasion Jewish opposers contemptuously asked Jesus: “Do we not rightly say, You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (John 8:48) So strong was anti-Samaritan sentiment that some Jews even cursed Samaritans publicly in the synagogues and prayed daily that the Samaritans would not be granted everlasting life. Knowledge of this deep-seated hatred doubtless prompted Jesus to give the illustration about the Samaritan who proved himself to be a real neighbor by taking care of the Jewish man beaten by robbers. How might Jesus have answered when the Jewish man versed in the Mosaic Law asked: “Who really is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) Well, Jesus could have replied directly by saying: ‘Your neighbor includes not only your fellow Jew but also other people, even a Samaritan.’ Jews would, however, have found it difficult to accept that. So he related the illustration about a Jew who received a Samaritan’s mercy. Jesus thus helped Jewish listeners to draw the conclusion that true neighbor love would extend to non-Jews. Jesus had no anti-Samaritan sentiments. Traveling through Samaria on one occasion, he rested by a well while his disciples went to the nearby city to obtain food. When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, he said: “Give me a drink.” Since Jews had no dealings with Samaritans, she asked: “How is it that you, despite being a Jew, ask me for a drink, when I am a Samaritan woman?” Jesus then bore witness to her, even declaring openly that he was the Messiah. ( the only person he did this to...a woman and a hated Samaritan) Jesus was not fettered by the prevailing attitude of his Jewish contemporaries!?John 4:4-42. But it forced the Jews to come up with the right answer but it taught his apostles a huge lesson.......in principle about prejudice which obviously would include anti-inner racial marriage.
Are we still on Homo-sexuality.
Jesus did absolutely condemn it. here
Matt 15:12?12?Then the disciples came up and said to him: “Do you know that the Pharisees stumbled at hearing what you said?” 13?In reply he said: “Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. 14?LET them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” 15?By way of response Peter said to him: “Make the illustration plain to us.” 16?At this he said: “Are YOU also yet without understanding? 17?Are YOU not aware that everything entering into the mouth passes along into the intestines and is discharged into the sewer? 18?However, the things proceeding out of the mouth come out of the heart, and those things defile a man. 19?For example, out of the heart come wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thieveries, false testimonies, blasphemies. 20?These are the things defiling a man; but to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”
fornications, notice it is in the plural form and obviously covers homosexual activity too not that it needs to be plural but the bible uses this plural form in only 7 places and 2 of them are this same quote FROM JESUS>
To expect him to address things individually is inviting disappointment, principles are superior to laws in every way.
Is there more?
yes
Posted on 1/30 12:26 AM | IP: Logged
Again, Sinatra said that Jesus specifically addressed a set of issues and condemned them. I agree that fornication involves sex outside marriage and, except for in a few states in the US and a handful of liberal nations, that would include all homosexual sex. That said, that is not a direct condemnation of gays or homosexuality. It is what it is, a condemnation of sex outside marriage.
When you discuss living by "principles" you are living by interpretation of Jesus' word (which, don't get me wrong, is preferable to living by a strict code). But living by "principle" opens it up to evolving thoughts and a society's projections of what they think something should mean.
And, yes, that is the end result when something is not specifically addressed. Under the strict letter of the language, Jesus either a) didn't intend to address homosexuality at all or b) indirectly did and stated it was no different than (or at least did not differentiate it from) any other sex outside of marriage.
He did not condemn drug abuse -- other than saying one should not defile the body. So again drug abuse would be lumped in with obesity and tattoo and alcohol and smoking.
He did not condemn interracial marriage. You argue the point that one might take the Samaritan tale as something quite to the opposite of that.
What you're missing here is that a) I'm not saying we should have expected Jesus to be specific and b) I'm not taking a position on one end or the other on any of these things.
Another poster on here said that Jesus specifically condemned these three things (to be honest, I don't believe he meant to include interracial marriage in that subset, but the post he responded to included the subject).
I called bullshit and asked for those more knowledgeable to clarify if Jesus Christ ever spoke on those three issues. It's quite clear that he did not specifically speak on them. There are extrapolations that can be drawn for principles that may apply, but, no, Jesus did not directly "condemn" these things.
Posted on 1/31 11:46 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
When you discuss living by "principles" you are living by interpretation of Jesus' word (which, don't get me wrong, is preferable to living by a strict code). But living by "principle" opens it up to evolving thoughts and a society's projections of what they think something should mean.
Principle as in bible principle and yes, a person must make decisions in life so, the more he knows about what the bibles view is on subjects the more he would be able to apply them in his life, so as far as open to the view of "society", I would contend that the "popular view" would more often than not not agree with "bible principles" and has nothing to do with what the author meant. Also popular opinion does not change bible principle. This is where the confusion seems to be coming from. Even if the entire population of man were to agree on what they think some principle is....say homosexual activity...... that would not force God to change his view nor would that validate what they think they read in the Bible.
I will say this about the homosexual issue. It is not the homosexual that is being condemned it is the act of homosexual behavior and equally offensive to God is sexual relations between men and woman that are not married. So God is not partial in that respect as well.....as he desires all to abandon their wrong course no matter what it is. He does not discriminate..... race, language group, nationality....and from the sound of his desire to not condemn anyone...regardless of their personal plight.....homosexual, drug addictions, violent or abusiveness, name it. If they stop the thing that is offensive and really turn to him for guidance.....that is pleasing to him. It is when a person becomes unwilling to change......is when they are in danger of losing out on life in the future. So to say that a homosexual can not gain life and not have Gods favor no matter what is not in agreement with what the bible says as 1 co 6:9-10 says that some of the early Christians were just that but they changed their life and stopped the activity that would have prevented them from becoming a Christian. I think that if we were to believe that these men or woman that did stop the homosexual behavior and did not struggle with it.....I mean were not still attracted to men (or woman to woman) we would be a stretch. But that is no different for a alcohol addictions or anything.
That is a different look at the subject, and intended to dispel the idea that condemned...........and hopeless.
here is the reference that says that the early Christian's did have homosexuals...but they changed their behavior.
1 co 6:9?What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10?nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11?And yet that is what some of YOU were.
Posted on 2/6 10:23 AM | IP: Logged
By that I mean that principles are going to be more open to interpretation than a strict law (which still is open to interpretation).
Out of curiosity, what are "men kept for unnatural purposes"? Also, what do you make of 1 Corinthians listing adulterers and homosexuals after fornicators? In the law, listing fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals would indicate that adulterers and homosexuals are not included in the definition of fornicators. If they were, you would list fornicators (including, without limitation, adulterers and homosexuals). Note that I'm not arguing with your interpretation of fornicators as being an inclusive term. Just find it interesting that they are separated in 1 Corinthians.
Posted on 2/6 11:42 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: By that I mean that principles are going to be more open to interpretation than a strict law (which still is open to interpretation).
Out of curiosity, what are "men kept for unnatural purposes"? Also, what do you make of 1 Corinthians listing adulterers and homosexuals after fornicators? In the law, listing fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals would indicate that adulterers and homosexuals are not included in the definition of fornicators. If they were, you would list fornicators (including, without limitation, adulterers and homosexuals). Note that I'm not arguing with your interpretation of fornicators as being an inclusive term. Just find it interesting that they are separated in 1 Corinthians.
Outstanding questions,
men kept for unnatural purposes.
In other translations and going back to the original Greek is usually a help and in this case it was as I was not 100% so before you asked I wanted to verify what I thought it was. Other translations use the word effeminate. The original Greek work literally translates soft (men), so for one to practice playing the roll of a female is unnatural and contrary to nature. My guess is this modern translation is more accurate because to say that one who has some feminine traits in looks or mannerisms is not what the original language nor the context would indicate. The idea is pretty obvious once we get to the root words. It would not be consistent with anything I have read and know about the Bible for someone to be condemned because of their natural looks (a male that naturally does not look very manly) nor a supposed mannerism ( a male that was raised by females and picks up on their mannerisms...being a soft man in modern English takes on a whole different meaning. Today I was watching an interesting film called that,s entertainment and in the lyrics I would guess that I heard that the men were gay a dozen times and that more than one time that something or someone was queer. Words and meanings can and do change meaning over time so it takes some research to be confident that the original language meaning is conveyed and I will be the first to admit that this is not always the case and the worst culprits are the "versions" from Older forms of English. I hate the thou and shalt...... But there are plenty of very old manuscripts from various languages that when compared it is overwhelmingly obvious that the bible has remained virtually unaltered outside a few versions and a few words.
The other question about fornication is this and I am not sure this will satisfy, as used in the Bible, “fornication” (Greek, por·nei′a) applies to illicit sexual relations outside of Scriptural marriage. It includes adultery, prostitution, and sex relations between unmarried individuals, as well as oral and anal sex and the sexual manipulation of the genitals of an individual to whom one is not married. It also includes such acts between individuals of the same sex as well as bestiality and so in 1 Co6:9, 10 while he could have simply said "fornication" the later reference about types of things some practiced and changed were made clear and encouraging to those who desire to flee from such things. There would have been no question that the things listed were all things that while being condemned a person could change.
Thanks InG. You had explained the expansive nature of fornication before (and I agree that I think a modern definition of fornication would include all those things). My question, though, is why Corinthians chose to word it like that. Obviously, these were not drafting lawyers, but in proper writing, a list like that implies that each item is separate. And emphasis would have been done separately. Probably just a drafting error.
Posted on 2/6 11:43 PM | IP: Logged
Thanks InG. You had explained the expansive nature of fornication,
I cant say for sure but it still looks like context is the reason for the expanded explanation and listing of all three. Looks to me like there was all an intent to make sure that it was understood that those practices were covered. Could have been as historians report that these practices were popular among the Greek speaking populations and this was a clarification that yes indeed these practices are not acceptable and that is exactly what some of them were...but a change is possible and forgivable.
Posted on 2/7 10:37 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
Originally posted by InGold: Some clergymen argue in favor of homosexuality, claiming that Jesus never spoke against it.
Is that really the case? I mean, I don't think you mean they're saying since Jesus didn't speak on it, people should do it. I mean, there's a difference between "didn't say it's an abomination" and "go for it." I've never heard that.
Wow,
And I thought you thought I was naive. Really.
If a religious organization accepts as priests or parishioners a particular "lifestyle" (as it is politically correct to say now)homosexuals, does it matter much what they say or are their actions speaking louder than anything. If they were to say it is not acceptable to engage in this activity, but they have active members or allow those taking the lead to be part and parcel, what are they saying?
Yes the churches say little today unless it is some Dr. wanting to make a name for himself...
Yahoo! Sports
