OT vs NT concerning Homosexuality

@medullah said
I’d never really thought about it that way.

You mean you thought adultery and fornication was wrong but homosexuality was ok? For real ?? They are both wrong and God will deal with all these sins. Its not up to Christians to condemn anyone. The duty of a Christian [if they so desire] is simply to teach, preach, inform. After that God deals with the judgment and punishment

@rajk999 said
You mean you thought adultery and fornication was wrong but homosexuality was ok? For real ?? They are both wrong and God will deal with all these sins. Its not up to Christians to condemn anyone. The duty of a Christian [if they so desire] is simply to teach, preach, inform. After that God deals with the judgment and punishment

So you believe that sexual immorality is at play when living by Jesus' instructions?

@kingdavid403 said
So how many Holy Scriptures from the Bible do you find spurious? I'd like to hear your supposed advanced knowledge of the Bible that gives you the right to pick and choose,
Also, I know of the controversy surrounding this portion of scriptures.

Then why so you take issue with me if you already know that there is a question against this section of the bibile ? It's rubbish on your part.

“There are only three of all the thousands of Greek manuscripts which do not include
John 8. The problem is that it is the three which do not include John 8:1-11 are the earliest and most reliable” . – John Oakes Ph D
====
The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in John 7:53—8:11. This section of Scripture, sometimes referred to as the pericope adulterae, has been the center of much controversy over the years. At issue is its authenticity. Did the apostle John write John 7:53—8:11, or is the story of the adulterous woman forgiven by Jesus a later, uninspired insertion into the text?

The Textus Receptus includes John 7:53—8:11, and the majority of Greek texts do. That is the reason the King James Version of the New Testament (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the section as an original part of the Gospel of John. However, more modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the section but bracket it as not original. This is because the earliest (and many would say the most reliable) Greek manuscripts do not include the story of the woman taken in adultery – Gotquestions.org
====
There is dispute over the authenticity of the passage between John 7:53 and John 8:11, known as the Pericope adulterae or Pericope de Adultera. It appears in the King James Version but modern English translations note that it is not present in the most reliable early manuscripts of John, and therefore suggest that it is unlikely to have been part of the original text. - Wikipaedia

@rajk999 said
You mean you thought adultery and fornication was wrong but homosexuality was ok? For real ?? They are both wrong and God will deal with all these sins. Its not up to Christians to condemn anyone. The duty of a Christian [if they so desire] is simply to teach, preach, inform. After that God deals with the judgment and punishment

Not at all and at no point did I say that Raj. All I said was that i had never cosidered the view point that was expressed which is the truth.

In the case of a Hermaphrodite, what is the correct pairing; for them to be with a man or a woman? This indeed a quandry and the point that i was making.

You can't turn your back on these people and pretend that they don't exist, though please understand that i am NOT accusing you of this. I have sympathy for anyone caught in this predicament that wishes to have both a fulfilling life and keep within scriptual boundaries.

@medullah said
Not at all and at no point did I say that Raj. All I said was that i had never cosidered the view point that was expressed which is the truth.

In the case of a Hermaphrodite, what is the correct pairing; for them to be with a man or a woman? This indeed a quandry and the point that i was making.

You can't turn your back on these people and pretend that they don't exist ...[text shortened]... in this predicament that wishes to have both a fulfilling life and keep within scriptual boundaries.

Well it could have been interpreted like that, and I know that there are some who are sympathetic to the plight of those inclined to be homosexuals and are not to straight people who commit formication and adultery. My point is they are all sins and will all be judged by God when the time comes. Eladars approach which is also wrong is like the Scribes and Pharisees who wanted these sinners dead. Jesus flatly condemned that as well. Also there are those like Sonship who foolishly try to add to the bible and claim that David and Jonathan were also in a homosexual relationship, maybe implying its is ok with God.

The job of Christian if he desires to preach is simply to inform people of the truth as preached by Jesus Christ, and leave the judging and condemnation and punishment up to God.

@medullah said
Not at all and at no point did I say that Raj. All I said was that i had never cosidered the view point that was expressed which is the truth.

In the case of a Hermaphrodite, what is the correct pairing; for them to be with a man or a woman? This indeed a quandry and the point that i was making.

You can't turn your back on these people and pretend that they don't exist ...[text shortened]... in this predicament that wishes to have both a fulfilling life and keep within scriptual boundaries.

Jesus said that some were born eunuchs.

If you look at the message of the New Testament, you will see having a sex life is pretty low on the list. I can see why non Christians would be concerned about a sex life. I do not see why a Christian would.

@Rajk999

Where did I say I wanted to see homosexusls killed?

You do know that bearing false witness is a reflection of Satan in a person's heart.

@Eladar

As Jesus said, let the one without sin cast the first stone. Jesus was foretelling the doom of such sinners at the hands of God.

That is a bizarre way to take that story's main point.
Why not say it was foretelling that there can be forgiveness obtained from the
only one qualified to judge sinners?

Look at the outcome as it happened - the conclusion. Mainly, that NO ONE present was qualified to pass judgment on her. Jesus, "the light of the world" (8:12) shined on their consciences with penetrating brilliance. And each one in the mob realized they were all just as guilty.

Jesus was qualified and He forgave her.
The outcome and climax as told by the evangelist:

"And Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? And she said, no one Lord.

And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." (vs.10,11)

It seems peculiar that this culmination is downplayed in favor of saying the story was a prediction of the woman's execution.

@sonship

I base it on what Jesus said,most people will die on the road to destruction. Anyone selling another story is a liar and is a servant of Satan.

@Eladar

I base it on what Jesus said,most people will die on the road to destruction. Anyone selling another story is s liar and is a servant of Satan.

Now, on one hand you don't think John 8:1-11 is the authentic account of what Jesus did and said. But on the other hand you base your interpretation on what Jesus said (in John 8:1-11 I take it).

I take the controversial passage as an account that so consistently reveals the kind of Person Jesus IS, that I favor it being authentic. Who could make that up?

My main take away from the story is that Jesus was and is God-man. He was also the God who wrote the law that Moses gave. And He was eager to forgive the woman caught in the acts of sinning purposely by those who did so solely for the purpose to trap Jesus.

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst, They said to Him, Teacher, this woman has been caught committing adultery, in the very act. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.

What then do You say?
But they said this to tempt Him, so that they might have reason to accuse Him." (vs. 3-6b)

The point of the story is how He FOILED their attempt to TRAP Him.
You seem more impressed that the point was Jesus was AGREEING with them -
the woman should suffer divine judgment.

I mean, I can't say you are wrong.
But it is peculiar that the outcome of their attempt to tempt Him backfired
because of His mercy.

So be it. Another question. What do you think He was writing in the ground there? Any thoughts?

"But they said this to tempt Him, so that they might have reason to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote with His finger on the ground." (v.6)

I hope you're not annoyed with this question. I love the Scriptures.

@sonship said
@Eladar

I base it on what Jesus said,most people will die on the road to destruction. Anyone selling another story is s liar and is a servant of Satan.

Most people die.
We hardly need Jesus to tell us that.

Whatever road you are on, the chances of you dying are pretty strong.
That is unless you are alive at the moment Christ returns ...[text shortened]... ed that the point was Jesus was AGREEING with them -
the woman should suffer divine judgment.

We a have a physical death, Jesus said that most would have a spiritual death as well. He describes such people as the dead, as in let the dead bury the dead.

@Eladar

I looked again at your comment, understood it better on the second review.
So I erased the first part of my reply.

Yes, without Christ who is life we are dead.

Divine life is also the power by which we can be delivered from the fallen sinful nature.

It is quite profound that ultimately the ZOE life which is really life is a Person - an uncreated and eternal Person.

Now what do you think Jesus the light of the world may have been writing in the dust of the ground in John 8:1-11 if you ever thought of it?

@sonship said
@Eladar

I looked again at your comment, understood it better on the second review.
So I erased the first part of my reply.

Yes, without Christ who is life we are dead.

Divine life is also the power by which we can be delivered from the fallen sinful nature.

It is quite profound that ultimately the ZOE life which is really life is a Person - an uncr ...[text shortened]... ld may have been writing in the dust of the ground in John 8:1-11 if you ever thought of it?

What use is light for the blind?

@medullah said
Then why so you take issue with me if you already know that there is a question against this section of the bibile ? It's rubbish on your part.

“There are only three of all the thousands of Greek manuscripts which do not include
John 8. The problem is that it is the three which do not include John 8:1-11 are the earliest and most reliable” . – John Oakes Ph D
====
The ...[text shortened]... John, and therefore suggest that it is unlikely to have been part of the original text. - Wikipaedia

Then why so you take issue with me if you already know that there is a question against this section of the bibile ? It's rubbish on your part.
The only rubbish around here is coming from you. You are teaching and preaching that this part of the Bible is fake and false; and, you actually have no proof or evidence if it is or not. You can have the opinion and knowledge that this portion of Scripture is in question by some; however you have absolutely no proof that it is fake or false; as you are preaching here; absolutely none.
As you said: "The Textus Receptus includes John 7:53—8:11, and the majority of the older Greek texts do too." The odds are overwhelmingly against your opinion. Maybe it's because you're reading a bibile and not a real Bible.

However, more modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the section but bracket it as not original.
My NIV translation says nothing about these scriptures not being original; it does say that some of the oldest manuscripts do not have these scriptures in them; that's it. you claim that 3 out of thousands(actually a little over 900) of Greek manuscripts do not have them; that leaves thousands (actually a little over 900) of Greek manuscript's against your three. The over-whelming odds are against you. BTW, The NIV and ESV translations are the most water downed rubbish translations around. Why? Because people like you came around thinking that they are above everyone, and thinking that they know everything, on how the Bible should have been written, and by whom from almost 2000 years ago. They feel that their supposed knowledge is so vast (as you), that they think they actually have the right to change Holy Scriptures of the Bible that were God breathed.

" 1) “Apostolicity and antiquity” (e.g., Papias in the late first and early second century attested to its authenticity, as did many of the church fathers), 2) “Historical authenticity and orthodoxy” (i.e., it was regarded as historical and there is nothing in it which is unorthodox), and 3) “Usage and spiritual power” (e.g., the church has always found this story to be very edifying)."
You can have your worthless Rubbish opinion on these scriptures; however, preaching your opinion as fact on this matter without any proof makes you nothing but a liar of God's Holy Word. Is there anything else in the Bible which is inspired Scripture, but which does not belong in the Bible according to your great wisdom? lol...

So, back to my question to you from the other day, Show us the Scripture or Scriptures that says abortion is child sacrifice? Show us any Scripture that says abortion is murder or the killing of a live human being or person? Then, I will show you that you are wrong according to scriptures and facts.
What is Wikipaedia or a bibile? Is that where you get most of your false information?