What does the New Testament say about homosexuality? Short answer: "Nothing"

[gmark77]

Actually both said Jews were still bound by their laws, as part of their covenants, while gentiles were not part of that covenant but bound by the universal covenant of his mission. It's not hard or complex, its just that some need to rewrite it to mean what they want it to instead of what it is.

Except that NONE of that is in the Gospels.

And think about what you are saying here: we have Jesus who is ministering to people. He is teaching them as a teacher. Meaning what he said is what is the "truth". IF Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass then it doesn't matter to WHOM he is speaking as he never says "Wait, dudes, this is ONLY teachings applicable to jews....those who follow me who AREN'T jews aren't held to this standard".

That's all stuff that came later with Paul et al. Paul himself even had to fight with the Jerusalem contingent (who presumably would have known Jesus personally) and he wins against their view of how the faith works.

But at no point does Jesus say anything even remotely like "This applies to this group and this applies to this other group".

 

[EdwinA]

Except that NONE of that is in the Gospels.

And think about what you are saying here: we have Jesus who is ministering to people. He is teaching them as a teacher. Meaning what he said is what is the "truth". IF Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass then it doesn't matter to WHOM he is speaking as he never says "Wait, dudes, this is ONLY teachings applicable to jews....those who follow me who AREN'T jews aren't held to this standard".

That's all stuff that came later with Paul et al. Paul himself even had to fight with the Jerusalem contingent (who presumably would have known Jesus personally) and he wins against their view of how the faith works.

But at no point does Jesus say anything even remotely like "This applies to this group and this applies to this other group".

lol now you're claiming 'truths' that aren't there. His ministry was overwhelmingly to Jews. Jews were the first Christians. Paul's travels were to synagogues outside Jerusalem. Paul was himself a Pharisee. When he clarified the different covenants and who was to abide them he speaking as himself as a Jew. He never says 'Wait dudes' because he didn't have to. The 'Jerusalem contingent' was led by guess who? It wasn't a fight, it was simply a matter of confusion among Jews themselves. There was no such dispute among Jesus and the Apostles, or between Jesus and the Sanhedrin.

Christians weren't even widely banned from synagogues outside Jerusalem until almost the end of the 1st Century A.D. Jesus angered the Temple cult's leaders, not most Jews. Modern rabbinical Judaism was a 2nd Century invention, fabricated by remaining Pharisee fanatics after the failure of the Bar Kokbha Revolt failed. The Sadducees lost power after the failure of the revolt was crushed in 70 A.D. and the Temple destroyed.

Read the entire Gospels and stop cherry picking what you want from the books; they are part of a whole, not just lists of isolated independent verses, just because somebody started numbering them centuries later for ease of reference. Context matters. Look up 'Chiasms' in the Bible writings. Both the Old and New Testaments use them for a reason.

 

[Cypress]

So Jesus knew his message would go forward via his followers but his message seems to be that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass before the earth passed.

And you think his message was better presented by Paul who seemed to disagree about the primacy of the OT laws?

What role does Jesus play in Christianity then?

It's really not hard to understand. Late first century Jewish-Christians follow the laws and regulations of Torah, late first century Gentile-Christians did not have to.

You have cherry picked one statement, from one gospel, and you are reading it like a biblical literalist.

Anyone who respects literary criticism cannot rip one quote out of one gospel, and ignore historical context, ignore cultural context, as well as ignoring the rest of the New Testament.

Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. No Gospel references the Old Testament or leans on the traditions of Midrash more than Matthew's. Uniquely among all the gospels, the original Gospel of Matthew may have been written in Hebrew, only later transcribed into Greek. It's heavily laden with a Jewish backdrop.

Of course Jesus in Matthew is not going to tell his fellow Jews to abandon the Torah. That would make no sense culturally or historically. The Torah is the covenant that distinguishes Israelites from all the other people around them.

Jesus didn't minister to Gentiles, and only had brief interactions with them in Sidon and Tyre.

Before his crucifixion, Jesus told his disciples to bring his message to the world, aka to the gentiles. He never gave instructions on how this was supposed to happen, or whether gentiles are to be judged by the Jewish Torah. Jesus said he would send the Holy spirit to guide the apostles in their ministries to the world.

Christians believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the that the Pauline teaching that gentiles are not to be judged by the Torah is accepted Christian doctrine, and has been for 1,800 years..

It shouldn't matter to atheists, because this doesn't concern them or their beliefs.

 

[gmark77]

It's really not hard to understand. Late first century Jewish-Christians follow the laws and regulations of Torah, late first century Gentile-Christians did not have to.

You have cherry picked one statement, from one gospel, and you are reading it like a biblical literalist.

And how is it NOT cherry picking for you to ignore it?


I'm just asking you to think it through: Jesus was a teacher. Which means he was teaching those he spoke to. You are trying to tell me that somewhere in the Gospels Jesus makes it clear that "This part doesn't apply to these of my followers but it applies to that other group of my followers".

Where is this clarified by Jesus? (Not interested in what Paul thought as he never met Jesus personally).

Jesus didn't minister to Gentiles, and only had brief interactions with them in Sidon and Tyre.
Before his crucifixion, Jesus told his disciples to bring his message to the world, aka to the gentiles.

This only makes your point more confusing. If you think Jesus wanted the Gentiles preached to then you must then clarify where Jesus said the Judaic laws would NOT thus apply to them. You can't just "wave your hands" because he is silent on the methods.

You cannot selectively IGNORE one verse because it bothers you anymore than you can cherry pick one verse.

He never gave instructions on how this was supposed to happen, or whether gentiles are to be judged by the Jewish Torah. Jesus said he would send the Holy spirit to guide the apostles in their ministries to the world.

So "lack of evidence" is somehow supporting your point but you have to IGNORE the quote from Jesus for it to work.

 

[Phantasmal]

Recommended book:

“What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality”

Daniel A. Helminiak​

 

[gmark77]

Recommended book:

“What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality”

Daniel A. Helminiak​

Strongs Concordance on the Leviticus verse condemning homosexuality seems pretty cut and dried. I would be interested to know how the author got around that one.

But, that being said, don't get me wrong: I'm 100% HAPPY that Christianity has evolved to be more accepting and truly dedicated to the preachings of "love thy neighbor". But the God of Abraham was pretty clear about homosexuality. And it is no surprise. Few societies condoned it, not all but it would not have been uncommon for the times I should think.

All religions evolve to suit the morality of the time. As we grow as people and understand others and meet others we adapt. The only "problem" is that religion claims to have objective absolute TRUTH. Which is immutable. So it becomes necessary for people to twist and exegete the bejeezlies out of the "Holy Writ".

That's probably the thing that saves civilization. Getting stuck in an outmoded morality would probably be detrimental to any society.

 

[Phantasmal]

Strongs Concordance on the Leviticus verse condemning homosexuality seems pretty cut and dried. I would be interested to know how the author got around that one.

But, that being said, don't get me wrong: I'm 100% HAPPY that Christianity has evolved to be more accepting and truly dedicated to the preachings of "love thy neighbor". But the God of Abraham was pretty clear about homosexuality. And it is no surprise. Few societies condoned it, not all but it would not have been uncommon for the times I should think.

All religions evolve to suit the morality of the time. As we grow as people and understand others and meet others we adapt. The only "problem" is that religion claims to have objective absolute TRUTH. Which is immutable. So it becomes necessary for people to twist and exegete the bejeezlies out of the "Holy Writ".

That's probably the thing that saves civilization. Getting stuck in an outmoded morality would probably be detrimental to any society.

Daniel Helminiak’s What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality – The “Abomination” of Leviticus

Daniel Helminiak’s What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality – The “Abomination” of Leviticus Although there may be few mentions (or hints) of homosexual content in the Bible—there are six—tha…

bibleprojectblog.com

 

[gmark77]

Daniel Helminiak’s What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality – The “Abomination” of Leviticus

Daniel Helminiak’s What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality – The “Abomination” of Leviticus Although there may be few mentions (or hints) of homosexual content in the Bible—there are six—tha…

bibleprojectblog.com

So it is merely "unclean" and therefor not part of the moral code just ritual codes?

Interesting exegesis. I didn't think he'd go after "abomination". Interesting approach.

The thing I dislike about this type of reasoning is it is so hyper-technical as to almost render the Bible meaningless to anyone except the most well educated Rabbi and no one else. This rule here is a "religious" rule and not a "sexual" rule, that rule over there is a "moral" rule not a "ritual" rule...etc."

I'm OK with a super-hyper-legalistic document that presumes knowledge not clearly laid out but that doesn't work well for a book that has been set up to guide all people. I would be surprised if God didn't know that 99.9999% of his creation were not Rabbinical Scholars.

The other critique I have of that type of "Bible" is that the Bible was not created that way. The Pentateuch wasn't even written in one go or by one author. Deuteronomy wasn't even "discovered" until King Josiah needed to firm up some political positions.

Here's a more rational read on the subject:

Leviticus does say what it says and means what it means. The God of the Israelites was just like many many other gods people came up with. He has the exact same dislikes as his followers. Homosexuality being one of them. Not uncommon in the world. So their God dislikes it as well. Ritual or moral doesn't really matter. I don't think the ancient Israelites would even draw that differentiation. But I can't say for certain. They were a theocracy.

It's super hard to tell if Jesus was OK with it or not as has been established he's pretty silent on the topic. He did preach acceptance and love so it's possible his revolution was also dismantling the self-same laws he claims were in effect until the end of the world. His ministry opens a new front in the "evolution of God". It expands God to a broader audience.

Christianity at its heart has a problem. A problem that earlier heretics tried to get away from but couldn't. The faith is stuck with the Old Testament. At its heart it has a God which one would THINK would be able to create permanent objective laws that are universal and don't change, but apparently he doesn't operate that way. Or perhaps his followers need him to operate differently. Draw whatever conclusion is necessary from that but that's the most rational way to explain how the Bible can be against gays and Christianity to evolve away from that. IMHO.

 

[Cypress]

And how is it NOT cherry picking for you to ignore it?


I'm just asking you to think it through: Jesus was a teacher. Which means he was teaching those he spoke to. You are trying to tell me that somewhere in the Gospels Jesus makes it clear that "This part doesn't apply to these of my followers but it applies to that other group of my followers".

Where is this clarified by Jesus? (Not interested in what Paul thought as he never met Jesus personally).



This only makes your point more confusing. If you think Jesus wanted the Gentiles preached to then you must then clarify where Jesus said the Judaic laws would NOT thus apply to them. You can't just "wave your hands" because he is silent on the methods.

You cannot selectively IGNORE one verse because it bothers you anymore than you can cherry pick one verse.



So "lack of evidence" is somehow supporting your point but you have to IGNORE the quote from Jesus for it to work.

You're cherry picking one quote from one gospel author, and ignoring historical context, ignoring cultural context, and ignoring the rest of the New Testament.

That's not literary criticism.

If you've never accosted a Jewish neighbor, colleague, or coworker to ask them why they aren't sacrificing animals or stoning adultreses, and your only agenda is to claim Christians are required to live a Torah-centered life, then you have another agenda besides legitimate literary criticism.

 

[gmark77]

You're cherry picking one quote from one gospel author, and ignoring historical context, ignoring cultural context, and ignoring the rest of the New Testament.

And you are explicitly ignoring one quote.

And I have repeatedly asked you to walk me through the reasoning which MUST include Jesus being clear that SOME of his followers had to adhere to these ritual laws while others (Gentiles which YOU clearly stated Jesus said to minister to) do not.

Where in any of the words of Jesus does he explain this?


Or have you INFERRED IT? If you have inferred it, what is your agenda in ignoring Jesus' clear words?

 

[Phantasmal]

It’s always intrigued me why Christian’s focus on homosexuality when they ignore what the Bible says about adultery. They embrace remarriage, but condemn homosexuality.

 

[Cypress]

And you are explicitly ignoring one quote.

And I have repeatedly asked you to walk me through the reasoning which MUST include Jesus being clear that SOME of his followers had to adhere to these ritual laws while others (Gentiles which YOU clearly stated Jesus said to minister to) do not.

Already explained ad nauseum.

Why does it matter so much to you as an atheist?

 

[Cypress]

Read the entire Gospels and stop cherry picking what you want from the books; they are part of a whole, not just lists of isolated independent verses. Context matters.

Surprisingly, the worst Biblical literalists and cherry-pickers are poorly-educated religious fundamentalists, and militant atheists.

That's because they have their own agendas beyond legitimate critical literary and historical analysis.

 

[gmark77]

Already explained ad nauseum.

Why does it matter so much to you as an atheist?

I guess the same reason it matters to agnostics.

As an atheist it doesn't mean that I've shut the door on God's existence! I could always learn otherwise! So I can still have interest in discussing the topic.

And besides: if one cannot see that this is a prime example of religion being wholly man-made then I can't imagine what would. Obviously this is humanity evolving morals, not God changing. God doesn't change. That's why he's God. If God changes then God is of no value to humanity.

The most dangerous thing someone can do is to tell others they are not allowed to question the holy writ.

 

[Cypress]

Recommended book:

“What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality”

Daniel A. Helminiak​

That's interesting.

 

[gmark77]

Already explained ad nauseum.

Actually no, you haven't. You've pointed to PAUL and the 1800+ years following it. But you have shown nothing that indicates that is what Jesus thought or felt.

You are aware that Paul =/= Jesus,

 

[gmark77]

Surprisingly, the worst Biblical literalists and cherry-pickers are poorly-educated religious fundamentalists, and militant atheists.

That's because they have their own agendas beyond legitimate critical literary and historical analysis.

What is your denomination? It might help me better understand your position with regards to Jesus' words.

 

[ZenMode]

Ron Miller, professor of religious studies, Lake Forest College:

It is important to remember that there was no general word for same-sex relations in Greek vocabulary at the time the New Testament authors were writing. A word inclusive of all same-sex relations does not occur in any language until the nineteenth century. So, the shortest and, strictly speaking, most accurate answer to the question “What does the bible say about homosexuality?” is “Nothing”. The current English-language Bibles translating these words as “homosexuals” are thus both incorrect and misleading.

If Paul intended to refer to same-sex relations in using the terms found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, then he was making an unwarranted generalization. The emphasis of the passage is clearly on deliberate, destructive behavior, not on one’s personal sexual preferences. We know of no instance where Jesus or Paul dealt with a loving, committed same-sex couple and therefore have no solid basis for conjecturing about their possible views of such a relationship.

In the NT, Jesus says that he's come to keep the law (or some similar phrasing). Christians pick and choose which of the laws they believe Jesus is talking about, because they don't want to have to execute their neighbors for working on the Sabbath, but are obsessed with preventing a woman from marrying a woman.

So, in their minds, Jesus, with all the things he had to worry about, was really, really concerned about a dude marrying a dude.

 

[gmark77]

In the NT, Jesus says that he's come to keep the law (or some similar phrasing). Christians pick and choose which of the laws they believe Jesus is talking about, because they don't want to have to execute their neighbors for working on the Sabbath, but are obsessed with preventing a woman from marrying a woman.

So, in their minds, Jesus, with all the things he had to worry about, was really, really concerned about a dude marrying a dude.

You aren't going to find many on this thread who would agree with that reading (present company excepted). It's kind of obvious but for the faithful it is anything but acceptable.

It is fascinating that one poster gets upset about atheists who want to discuss the form and function of the Bible when, even by their own admission, the Bible has been central to much of our society over its history. So to deny atheists the right to even QUESTION the Bible is the only defense many of them have.

The reason I like this discussion is because it is a near perfect example of a religion being changed in real time to adapt to moral changes in our society. And it's actually all for the GOOD.

I don't denigrate those who want to square the circle to make the God of Abraham a god who truly DID so love the world. But I also see no problem with noting that seems to be exactly what is going on.

Your point about selective adherence to the holy word is spot on. And I suspect it is a truism for ALL humans. We always cherry pick. No one can take a document cobbled together over millennia by unrelated groups of people to have a consistent throughline of unchanging "truth".

 

[Hume]

Who cares what an over 2000 year old book says about morality?!