Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 80:
Line 80: + + + + − + − As for Jonathan's stripping of his soldiers garments ("girdle" means armor in other places and men did wear undergarments in those days, while the word “even” is used to denote a limited extent in such places as Num. 4:43) and giving them to David is not erotic, but was a ceremony of prophetic significance after the manner of the clear parallel in Numbers 20:26. Therein we read the command, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there." This ceremony symbolically signified the transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan's divestiture of his royal clothing (as the king's son) to give them to this poorly clad shepherd boy (clothes were indicative of royalty: cf. Esther 6:8) prophetically signified the transference of the future kingship from himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would shortly come to pass. None of this lends itself to the imaginative erotic encounters the liberal interpretation seeks.+ Line 99:
Line 103: − + −
Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality? (view source)
Revision as of 22:03, February 20, 2008
, 22:03, February 20, 2008→Brief responses to primary homosexual arguments
Likewise attempts to relegate Rm. 1:18-27 (and it's Levitical basis) to only sodomy that is part of idolatry fails to recognize that ALL sin is a manifestation of idolatry, formal or informal. Either Jesus is Lord or the flesh is Lord at any given time. Nor does it only address forced acts, but consensual relations (v. 27).
Likewise attempts to relegate Rm. 1:18-27 (and it's Levitical basis) to only sodomy that is part of idolatry fails to recognize that ALL sin is a manifestation of idolatry, formal or informal. Either Jesus is Lord or the flesh is Lord at any given time. Nor does it only address forced acts, but consensual relations (v. 27).
As for dual commands of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, these do pertain to Temple prostitution, and the use of the word "sodomite" makes that distinction, thus further affirming the general applicability of Levitical prohibitions, rather than the opposite, as homosexual apologists wrest it to mean. These were also addressed to Israel as a whole, as part the mixture of religious, civil and moral “statutes and judgments” that began in chapter 12. In addition, specific prohibitions against one manner of homosexual activity need not negate those of a universal nature. When the State prosecutes priestly pedophilia, it is condemning all forms of such
A final objection is to applying the word "sodomy" or "sodomite" to homosexuals, as it not an accurate word for such. However, in the Bible, as in real life, sometimes a word is not understood by it's exact meaning but according to it it's contextual employment, especially when used as a euphemism. As they like the word “gay,” they must comprehend this. A “grunt” need not be a vocal utterance but can denote an unskilled hard laborer, as such are known for such sounds. The Hebrew word translated "sodomy," (qâdêsh) basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”(qâdash), but in all it's occurrences (except Job. 36:14 = unclean) it signifies a class of unholy person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity, as indicated first in Dt. 23:18 (the male version of a prostitute), and their having houses by the Temple in 2 Ki. 23:7. Further instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46) testify to their sinful condition, and the translated word “sodomite” derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated. Likewise “the price of a dog” was not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but denotes the gains of the “kadesh,” a person who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and which class of people received their euphemistic name from the dog-like manner in which the male prostitute perversely debased himself. It later was applied by the Jews to all Gentiles, signifying their unclean state, and in Rev_22:15 it is spiritually applied to all the the defiled.
Then there is the "red letter" hermeneutic, that must negate any sin Jesus did not explicitly condemn, as if the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35), and details the fornications (plural) that Jesus condemned and will send one to Hell (Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27).
Then there is the "red letter" hermeneutic, that must negate any sin Jesus did not explicitly condemn, as if the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35), and details the fornications (plural) that Jesus condemned and will send one to Hell (Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27).
As for attempts to find approved examples not simply of homosexual activity, but of marriage, as without that sanctifying provision which God abundantly and explicitly evidences for heterosexuals, (and would for homosexuals if indeed it was the healthy and wholesome thing they make it to be), then it wold be unholy fornication, such attempts require reading present western culture into an Oriental setting, as well as ignoring other aspects necessary for sound exegesis.
As for attempts to find approved examples not simply of homosexual activity, but of marriage (as without that sanctifying provision which God abundantly and explicitly evidences for heterosexuals - and also would for homosexuals if indeed it was the healthy and wholesome thing they make it out to be - then it would be unholy fornication), such attempts require reading present western culture into an Oriental setting, as well as ignoring other aspects necessary for sound exegesis.
Beginning in 1 Sam,. 18, David and Jonathan's "bosom buddy" expressions of affection are in keeping with the strong emotional language of the culture, and of David elsewhere (read the Psalms) and are an example of platonic love between two fellow soldier whose loyalty to God and thus each other was trial tested, and the attempt to make them erotic fails in every attempt. Saul was known keeping potentially good soldiers from going home (1 Sam. 14:52), the Hebrew word covenant never is used for marriage, and David became the kings son in law for the first time with Michal (1 Sam. 18:21-27: the word "one" is missing often in Scripture when the context makes it clear what it is).
Beginning in 1 Sam,. 18, David and Jonathan's "bosom buddy" expressions of affection are in keeping with the strong emotional language of the culture, and of David elsewhere (read the Psalms) and are an example of platonic love between two fellow soldier whose loyalty to God and thus each other was trial tested, and the attempt to make them erotic fails in every attempt. Saul was known keeping potentially good soldiers from going home (1 Sam. 14:52), the Hebrew word covenant never is used for marriage, and David became the kings son in law for the first time with Michal (1 Sam. 18:21-27: the word "one" is missing often in Scripture when the context makes it clear what it is).
Regarding Jonathan's stripping of his soldiers garments, ("girdle" means armor in other places and men did wear undergarments in those days, while the word “even” is used to denote a limited extent in such places as Num. 4:43) and giving them to David is not erotic, but was a ceremony of prophetic significance after the manner of the clear parallel in Numbers 20:26. Therein we read the command, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there." This ceremony symbolically signified the transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan's divestiture of his royal clothing (as the king's son) to give them to this poorly clad shepherd boy (clothes were indicative of royalty: cf. Esther 6:8) prophetically signified the transference of the future kingship from himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would shortly come to pass. None of this lends itself to the imaginative erotic encounters the liberal interpretation seeks.
As for the farewell (1 Samuel 20:41), "kissing" is very very rarely sexual in the Bible (and when it is, the context makes it very evident), nor was kissing looked upon as a sexual expression in the Middle East (wikipedia), and that "until David exceeded" (i will not tell you how they try to use that) relates to his David's weeping. But true to form, homosexual apologists cannot leave two close fire-tried comrades to sadly say good bye for good (and it was for good, and the only real friend the hunted David had ) without forcing a meaning into a place where it does not belong.
As for the farewell (1 Samuel 20:41), "kissing" is very very rarely sexual in the Bible (and when it is, the context makes it very evident), nor was kissing looked upon as a sexual expression in the Middle East (wikipedia), and that "until David exceeded" (i will not tell you how they try to use that) relates to his David's weeping. But true to form, homosexual apologists cannot leave two close fire-tried comrades to sadly say good bye for good (and it was for good, and the only real friend the hunted David had ) without forcing a meaning into a place where it does not belong.
For more on this (if you really need it) i would recommend http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html (mine)
For more on this (if you really need it) i would recommend http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html (mine)
and http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html (see Homosexuality) --[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)
and http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html (see Homosexuality) --[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)
==Paul's Letter To The Corinthians==
==Paul's Letter To The Corinthians==