Very much appreciate your going through these passages. Your research into Roman sexuality - and abusive sexual practices - is a much-needed, hugely important element in the context of this discussion.
" For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears And they shall turn away their ears from the truth , and shall be turned unto fables " ( 2 Timothy, Chapter 4 , v.3 and 4 ) . Roman's Ch.1 speaks for itself . Believe it , or not . Up to each one of us , as all will be answerable to Christ . On that Day there will be clarity , and He will have no arguments.
Agreed. I think, whenever anything is unclear, just go back to Genesis... It is an awesome book and one which the Devil has been seeking to destroy and corrupt for centuries! Just read and look and observe... Don't think and interpret. Just read it as it stands!!! How did God create Humankind (ONE man and ONE Women) and what where his instructions to them. It's really that simple! Don't try and subtract or add to it.... Just read it and let it form pictures in your mind about what it says!!! It is pure, it is straight, it is simple, it is truth! Genesis is where we get to learn a lot about the Heart of God and his will for us! WE SHALL NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT!!!!!!
@@schlix101 Yes, Adam and Eve bought the lie of the Devil, when he told them they could know good and evil. That is, they would be able to determine for themselves what was right and wrong, making themselves idolaters, being their own god. And now we have these ridiculous and wicked arguments over what is clearly stated all through the Old and New Testaments, and even in nature itself. God is furious with most all of us, you better believe it. Seek the Savior evermore, before that great day, lest we die in our sins, and face judgment after death.
Hi Eric! Romans 1 speaks for itself up to a point - then along comes Romans 2! I love how scripture can take us on a journey from where we are to where God wants us to be, and I think Paul invites us on a journey like that in Romans. We'll probably find ourselves recognising our desire to condemn people who seem evil to us at the start, but by the end we can know what it means to have transformations in our minds so we can be increasingly like Christ. There'll be signs for us to recognise when this is happening, and we might end up changing our minds about some things we thought we knew. What do you think?
@@BernLeckie I think God is the same yesterday, today , and forever . I know he created a woman from and for a man , and that they were to become one flesh inside marriage for the pro creation of children . Sex is meant to be between a man and a woman , within marriage . One of the issues God had with Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality . You are in error , in my opinion. I have my own struggles and issues with God , but I know Christ's blood cleanses me from all my sins , as lo g as I acknowledge these first , and ask for His help . I recommend John , Ch.6 , v.37 , which is a promise from Jesus Christ to anyone who comes to Him for rescue . That's where I started on my path to salvation, without knowing much doctrine . I took Christ at His word , and He took me in ... best wishes .
@@eric2685 Thanks Eric - I love your thoughtfulness and what you've shared about your own journey here. I'm not sure where you think I'm in error, but I don't want to argue! I think I'm seeing from many people's comments here that there's an expectation that where we might differ on one issue (e.g. defining what food is acceptable, as Paul addresses in Romans, or what love is acceptable, as Christians debate today), we might differ on ALL issues, and this is where accusations and condemnations start flying. I absolutely agree with you about Jesus being the source of rescue which I need, like all of us. It sounds like our experiences might differ about how he has shaped our minds so far, but I hope you'd also agree that we are works in progress, with new things still to learn. Best wishes to you too!
Thank you for this video. I think the great error in the ages about homosexuality is that it has been associated with sexual excess solely. Sexual orientation and the reality of it has never been discussed or mentioned. Deeply loving and monogamous long term relationships happen between two people of the same the sex all over the world all the time. These individuals are not attracted at all to the opposite sex. They are gay by birth. And yet, because of a warped interpretation of scripture, natural sexual orientation towards the same sex is seen as sexual depravity. As the video discusses, many heterosexual men (it happened in greco roman times and it still happens today) might have sex with another man who is sexually passive (or not sexually passive) for different reasons and that doesn't compromise his masculinity, but you see this case of homosexuality is different from someone who is truly gay. The case of the heterosexual man having sex with men is a case of sexual excess, in my eyes. Sexual excess can distract a person from their spiritual life whether they are gay or straight. Being gay is not a case of sexual excess. Sure, heterosexuals and gays all have the same human tendency to fall into lust but just having a sexual orientation by birth towards the same sex does not make a person sexually depraved . That is what needs to be understood by all Christians and the world at large!
Here's a reminder of what Satan said to Eve a long, long time ago, "Did God REALLY say that?" Satan still speaks the same today. Are you going to listen and then be deceived by him? Or. are you going to resist him?
Really good point about not wanting to be deceived by Satan! Do you find that asking "Did God really say that?" is a question you believe you must not ask when you read the Bible or hear a talk, though?
davey - plus one to what Bern said. What I will resist is being told how to read the bible by people who have no idea of scriptural, cultural or linguistic context.
I think, whenever anything is unclear, just go back to Genesis... It is an awesome book and one which the Devil has been seeking to destroy and corrupt for centuries! Just read and look and observe... Don't think and interpret. Just read it as it stands!!! How did God create Humankind (ONE man and ONE Women) and what where his instructions to them. It's really that simple! Don't try and subtract or add to it.... Just read it and let it form pictures in your mind about what it says!!! It is pure, it is straight, it is simple, it is truth! Genesis is where we get to learn a lot about the Heart of God and what He intends for our lives and how we can orientate ourselves to resonate with our beginnings! There is NO NEED for us to deduct for our own understanding, for Genesis simply says what it says and THAT IS THAT!!!!!! - If you don't get it, then it can only be because you are in disagreement and you don't want to get it... Which means perhaps you should look at yourself a bit more you imperfect human being.... which is what we all are, isn't it??? Genesis speaks to our inner being, more than any other book!!! And once we accept it's truth we realize that we are fallen, in need of a savior!
Thanks for your comment! It sounds we would all like people to read the Bible and receive what it means more faithfully, but the "don't think" approach that you describe might be a reason why people end up misunderstanding and disagreeing. Whether or not we want to, and without actively trying, we all interpret what we read through our current understandings, which differ from person to person. However, as Jesus calls us to "metanoia" (Mark 1:14-15), a changing of our minds to receive his mind, and Paul writes "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2), we find that following Jesus results in our minds being changed - and that can include growing in our understanding of what the Bible means. Have you ever had this experience?
I like HOW you read the Bible. I can hear how much it means to you, in your heart, not just in your head. Thanks for your perspective. It really helps me with my fears/triggers with reading Romans. (church abuse was bad for me)
I hope the best for you but his interpretation although interesting and may have some historical facts that is not what Paul was talking about he was talking about Genesis for a lot better understanding check out Dr. Michael Heizer the unseen realm you will enjoy and your Bible we’ll make more sense good luck God blessI hope that helps
All of this will not help you are reading into the text to gratified your way of thinking does who were not found written in the book to life will pay the price for our behaviour. God help us
Pretty disgusting situation in Rome back in Paul's day but he was not afraid to call it out. To him, it was a matter of life and death, and he was offering life through Christ to cultures that were headed for hell in a handbasket! A wake-up call to every person, every culture, worldwide. Some will laugh haughtily, but God will have the last word.
@@MusicalRaichu That is exactly right! God sent fire from the sky before as it says in the Book of Jude. Biblical history is a warning for us, that is one reason God wrote it down for us. Like I said in another post, we are trying to save people from the wrath of God that will surely come after death. But this is mistakenly seen as being hateful, when in fact it is love for people, to warn them and to turn them to Christ for salvation. A mother scolding her child for playing in the street is love, not hate, it is caring. I do not delight what so ever in knowing that people are headed for eternal torment for sins committed in life, especially when God offers us the grace of salvation. But no one is right with God if they are in disagreement with Him, over His laws.
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 abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
@@davidparry5310 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:27 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination Leviticus 20:13 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18
@@stephenpeppin5537 'And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly' Again, it's by no means a given that this is necessarily a condemnation of male-male activity per se. As for the part about women 'exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones', this is either not a reference to female-female sexual activity or is an interpolation, as virtually no one in ancient Rome during the era of the Principate had any concept of such things even occurring. As for the Leviticus verse, I find it amusing how people like you almost invariably omit the part about execution, and when pressed on it, come out with some BS rationalisation about how the execution part is no longer applicable, but the rest of the injunction is still applicable because ... reasons.
@@davidparry5310 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:18 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
Hi Susan - thanks for commenting. When you write "anything goes", is this your reflection on today's society, or your impression of what is being suggested by the video? Maybe both? There's a content warning at the start of the video because some of what's described - particularly towards the end, is abusive and would likely be condemned by many people today even though it was common in Paul's culture. We agree with Paul (and Jesus) in not accepting an "anything goes" attitude to life! For anyone who hasn't yet seen the video (thinking of people reading the comments first, rather than you, Susan!) it would be good to make sure to watch to the end, even though some of what is described is difficult to take in. And in that context, Paul's challenge to believers in Romans 2 is massive - what do you think about that?
Romans 2 tells us not to judge and that we will be condemned for doing so which is the point of Romans 1. But Conservative Christians don't read that Chapter. They are focused on being the sin police for what they believe is sinful and no humility whatsoever that they could possibly be wrong.
"And likewise also the men....burned in their lust for one another.... This doesn't sound like a display of power, nor even necessarily an act of pederasty. Rather, it sounds to me like consensual sex between men who are drawn to "one another."
Exactly! And I would add Paul's admonition to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:3 - "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
Rom 1.27 is neither about pedarasty nor homoxesuality. The word used by Paul is not "Iust", it's "appetite", a different connotation. He spoke of male idolaters who "set aside the natural use of the female", men naturally attracted to women but had secs with men anyway for some other reason, namely idolatry. Someone gay has never been attracted to women so has not done that. The text fails to describe gay people.
You might be right - but keep reading the rest of Romans! "Desires of the flesh" are definitely addressed - it's not an invitation to believe that all behaviour is acceptable - but it's also a challenge to any of us who thought we understood the law or believed that we could condemn anyone else by quoting it. I'd love to know what you think of the rest of the journey Paul takes readers on in this letter.
@@billpowell9527 Sounds like you're struggling with your own sexuality, else you wouldn't be so adamantly absolutist. I've always found the "therefore" intriguing that begins Romans 2:1, showing it shouldn't be a second chapter: "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." Looks like you got caught in the sting operation, too.
@@billpowell9527 It's a 100% certainty that it's not a choice. A bisexual person can choose, but a homosexual cannot. Believing it's a choice is like believing the sky is green. Read any psychology text or ask any homosexual, or ask anyone who is paraphilac in other ways...or ask yourself! Did YOU choose your sexual orientation?
You might argue that one can choose one's lifestyle - embrace your sexuality ; pretend you're not what you are ; or just be alone and celibate. Not much of a choice, is it, really? But to say that one's sexuality is a choice is just ignorant, and judgmental.
There was no such thing as "written word of God" other than the Torah when Paul was an apostle. He was one of those people who were writing "the written word of God," which is the New Testament.
@@shaneharrison4775 Do you have difficulty reading English? I said, "There was no such thing as 'written word of God' other than the Torah when Paul was an apostle." Whether he was sticking with the teachings of the Torah is up for debate.
@@nedthumberland No i dont have any difficulty at all. Being as any utterance can be equated and understood and writen. It is your unbelief that incumbers your understanding the writen version of Gods breathed word. There for the problem lays with you sir not I.
@@shaneharrison4775 Being a believer isn't a prerequisite for understanding scripture. To assert that certain teachings can only be understood by the initiated is not only false, but it reeks of Gnosticism.
Thank you for taking historical context and the original audience seriously. However you left out, I hope not purposefully, an important detail in the text itself that doesn't depend on the historical context, rather on the human heart. In verse 24 the issue is identified, the lusts/sinful desires of their hearts. Verse 27 also, which says they were consumed with passion for one another. No doubt the Greco Roman attitude of power and standing is important, but here the issue is 'passion for one another'. Both are active pursuing it 'for one another'. Jesus warns that adultery in the law is about lust of the heart not just acts. People are the same now as then, human nature has not changed. Lust is rampant now as it was then, this talk makes it seem like back then people were primarily almost exclusively interested in power and religious practices in regard to sex, rather than individual pleasure and where the text identifies it - as lust of the human heart.
Hi John - thank you for watching and for your thoughtful response. You're right to point out that "lust of the heart" is a timeless issue that Jesus addresses, as well as many other writers in the Bible! As we look to interpret scripture faithfully, we include that. However, this talk is addressing the meaning and context of a part of Romans 1 which is often misinterpreted for other reasons the speaker focused on, including our lack of understanding of some aspects of the local culture, as well as Paul's intention in his writing structure which becomes clearer when we start to read Romans 2, which starts: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (Romans 2:1) In that context, doesn't it seem ironic when people use any part of Romans 1 to condemn others, especially parts we may not have correctly understood?
@@severnvineyard thanks for your reply, you are correct it's not just ironic but it's sinful that Christians would condemn others for their sin. The whole point is that the law of God is what condemns us and that we are all guilty, the result is that our mouths should all be shut when it comes to condemning anyone else. Regarding sexuality it's clear to me what it's saying in Romans the cause is passion and lust not forced/ passive sex, however God condemns all sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman committed for life - Jesus said it to clearly in Matthew God made male and female from the beginning of creation, therefore one man one woman marriage is his design and command, and what he has joined together, one man and one woman, let not man separate. It's wrong that homosexuality has been somehow been made out to be worse sexual sin than others. Nonetheless it is still a sin like all others that are deserving of death and God's holy judgment and are to be repented of. The good news is that God took that judgment upon himself at the cross For anyone who confesses their sins and receives the forgiveness by faith evidenced by repentance. Thanks for reading!
@@johnsteindel5273 'Jesus said it to clearly in Matthew God made male and female from the beginning of creation. ' It's just extrapolation to say that therefore, heterosexual marriage is God's design and same-sex marriage and homosexual activity are contrary to said design. It's a leap of logic.
It wasn’t just Paul’s writings and let us not forget about sodom and Gomorrah! Leviticus 18:22 - Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 20:13 - If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Romans 1:24-27 - Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. I Corinthians 6:9 - Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men. 1 Timothy 1:10 - For the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers - and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
The bible is only 3000 years old, humans like us (homo sapiens) exist for 300,000 years. In none of the millions of artefacts, cave paintings, scriptures or any other testimony in the 297,000 years before the bible, a "homosexuality hating, one and only God YHWH” or "Adam and Eve" was ever mentioned. Any archaeological testimony of that version of a god is out of the short "biblical time" when people already invented that story and believed in it. This version of a "homosexuality hating, one and only God YHWH" is an invention only 4000-3000 years old.
The argument present is that the condemnation of homosexual practices only pertains to the specific subcategory of people from Romans 1:22 onward and that everything listed after 22 pertains to just this group. But the sins that pertain to this group are universal, so Paul reminds his followers in Romans 2 not to do them. Fornication is condemned in the Gospels and the letters several times and any sexual act outside of heterosexual marriage would have been considered such. For this reason, Paul does not mention homosexual relations as a legitimate vocation when he talks of marriage or celibacy. And being a former Pharisee, Paul would have condemned homosexuality in and out of his letters.
Hi Steve - interesting comment. Is that what you think is being said in the video, or are you referring to another argument? I'm getting the impression that some viewers have a lot on their minds about these issues before watching, and so a lot comes to mind while watching - both from the talk and elsewhere! It's not surprising, because these are much discussed and sensitive topics. Do you know anyone struggling with them?
@@BernLeckie You seem to be attempting an Ad Hom against my intellectual authority by implying I didn't watch the entire video or address the arguments being made in the video. That simply is not the case. It's also irrelevant, to scripture and tradition, whether I know any individuals struggling with any sin whatsoever. The argument being made here is that the group being referred to in Romans 1:22 are pagan temple sexual abusers and that it is not applicable to the general population. First, I'd like to point out that Romans 1:17 references to Hab 2:4 and one could make a rather obvious argument that everything that follows from Romans 1:17 is referring to historical wickedness that occurred in centuries past in a different location. So, it could be a commentary on the past, Paul's present, and something relevant to us today, and I see no reason why it can't be all three. Even if we say that Pau's intent when writing this letter is primary, we fall into the Intentionality Fallacy. Instead, the interpretation of Paul's words must be analyzed as a whole and cross-referenced with other areas of scripture. Therefore, the notion that Romans 1 only condemns specific immoral practices with this specific subgroup of people in this specific place, which is Rome, falls.
@@steveempire4625 Please forgive me for anything I wrote which you perceived as an attack on you. I'm genuinely curious about how what you wrote related to the video and how your perception might have been shaped through your experience and other things on your mind - maybe I'm more prone than you to processing things together in this way! My impression of Owen's argument is different from yours - I didn't pick up the suggestion that Paul's description of sin was meant to be limited and not applicable to the general population. I agree with you that this argument would be faulty, because Paul includes everyone in history (past, present and, I expect, future) in his description of people who deserve condemnation in Romans 1. That is his point leading into Romans 2! If Paul's Romans 1 sin list is all-inclusive, it makes no sense to use it as a way to excuse anyone, but Paul also instructs believers not to use it to condemn anyone, lest we condemn ourselves. So Owen's point about what readers would have understood by what we get from Paul in English as "sexual impurity" and "shameful acts with other men" wasn't to exempt anyone from sin, but to bring to mind the true awfulness of what would have been front of mind for people in the culture of his time - especially the abuse people suffered. Paul was clearly writing about sin. However, Owen also made the point that Paul was structuring his writing in a particular way - what he termed a "sting operation" - in which the reader or listener may have felt an immediate rush of condemnation for other people before realising that they were being drawn in into make accusations about others which would reflect back on themselves. There is more about this in the next video in the series. Does that sound like a fair interpretation to you, of the talk and of the passage? Or have I missed something vital?
@@BernLeckie First Paragraph: Surely, my views on this subject are beyond the scope of this video but that is not to say I didn't give it a fair hearing. No harm, no foul. Second Paragraph: The clear intent of this video is to indicate that wholesome homosexual relationships are not being condemned in Romans 1 by pointing to Roman practices. In other words, Paul is condemning these Roman practices as opposed to modern-day homosexuality. That is completely false and I'm not sure how it is possible for you to have missed this intent. Third Paragraph: I cast doubt on the notion that Paul was speaking of Roman practices. His general list of vices and his quoting of OT scripture gives me the impression he's speaking of Natual Law. This wasn't a situation where he was shocked and appalled by Roman practices and decided to write about it. When Paul is disgusted by something, he tends to point out the specific community and sin involved. Fourth Paragraph: There's no evidence at all here to suggest that Paul was condemning Roman/Gentile practices and therefore was setting up Jews for an epic putdown in Romans 2. These sins of Natural Law come from the OT, come from Paul's knowledge of the OT, and he brings up the rebellious history of the Israelites to the Romans. And this same technique of listing a bunch of sins as condemnation is given to Corinth, Galatians, and Colossians. The specific situation in Rome at the time is irrelevant to Romans 1.
@@steveempire4625 Got it, thank you! I agree with you that Paul was not writing specifically about Roman practices. As I believe Owen mentioned, and other commentators certainly do, Paul's approach through Romans 1 would have sounded very familiar to Jewish audiences as the kinds of appeal to Natural Law they were used to. These were frequently made in the context of Jewish leaders reminding people how blessed Israel was in comparison to other nations, at a time when Jewish culture was being threatened by dilution into other cultures, especially Greek-speaking cultures, and invasion from Rome. As such, Romans 1 would have sounded to a reader or listener like the Paul was getting into a familiar routine, pointing to "them" (non-Jews, people who didn't know or follow God's law) as Israel's biggest problem - count how many times "they" or "them" is used, never "we" or "us." Nevertheless, we'd be missing Paul's point entirely if we read this passage as if it is a condemnation or "you're fine" for any particular people. Paul turns surprisingly, satirically perhaps, to "they disobey their parents" and a bunch of other things which includes everyone. Not just "them", definitely "us." I think this is meant to feel awkward and uncomfortable to the reader - you may disagree, but if we aren't at all uncomfortable with condemnation of "them" when we should be included, we've definitely missed the point of Romans 2:1 - "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." That is the "epic putdown" as you beautifully put it - not a setup for the Jews, but using (at the time) familiar Jewish language as a setup for everyone reading - including us! When you read a comment here condemning people for something they've read in Romans 1, you might also hear the snap of the trap Paul put in place. That is NOT to excuse anything on the list as 'not sin', but demonstrate the trap's effectiveness. We all need Jesus to get us out of it, to free us from sin and from the feeling that we need to condemn others if that's what we end up doing. I think the key to understanding Romans is to walk through it with Paul, and to acknowledge that we did get caught in condemnation as well as sin, then to receive what only Jesus can offer to free us from both. When we do this, and only after we've given ourselves up in worshipful sacrifice as response to God, Paul promises that we can "be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Romans 12:2b) At this point, I'd like to stop short of attempting to argue or defend what you think Owen meant about homosexuality today. This is partly because it's late (and nearly Christmas!), partly because I respect that your view isn't something I can know or engage with as well as you can (you might like to explain more, but I don't want to prolong an argument!), and partly because I believe - as I think you might too - that God loves to renew our minds and help us see how he is at work in wholesome relationships, and he can illuminate that much better than I can. Hope you have a very happy Christmas, and please keep in touch if you'd like to discuss more.
You can spin it all you want while here on earth, but there is going to be a judgment, based on the Word of God, that means what it says and does not change. Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked: Who can know it?" That is what is going on here, self deception, dreamers trying to make the bible say what they want it to say. Jude 7 is a model of the future when Christ returns. Christ can save you but you must confess the truth, then cleansing will come. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Be fearful, and call out for salvation.
Hi Gordon - have you watched the video to the end? Or read Romans to the end recently? I don't think the speaker here is denying that there is wickedness in society - that's why there is a content warning at the start! Paul's challenge to us in Romans is partly to make us accept that we have all done things which are subject to judgement, and therefore should not judge each other (Romans 2). But while God's view of evil doesn't change, our view might need to because picking up the law and trying to make sense of it with our own minds is insufficient and did not lead to salvation. We can follow this in Romans. No-one gets righteous through works of the law, although it can make us aware of sin (Romans 3). We only enter a state of right relationship with God though faith (Romans 3-4), which isn't so much a belief we hold in our heads but Jesus' faithfulness to us and our faithful response to him (Romans 5). This can put us on the way of life with Christ, avoiding sin, death and condemnation from the law (Romans 6-7). It is therefore vital for us to be filled with and transformed by the Spirit (Romans 8), and only with this mindset can we accept that salvation is a work of God's mercy rather than something we can earn (Romans 9). If there's anything we need to do, it's summed up in Romans 10 - "if you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." God will work out how to save all of his people, including Israel (Romans 11). Looking at what we're called to do in worshipful response (Romans 12), we should expect God to change our minds. Only then will we truly know his will. Does that suggest to you that we have already mastered God's definitions of love, evil, and what God wants to do through us in the world to bring about his kingdom? It strongly suggests to me that we have not. Paul prescribes love and humility for us. This is not surrender to evil, but surrender of how we thought we would tackle evil before our minds were changed by Christ. It's not about us gratifying "the needs of the flesh" (Romans 13) but accommodating people with different faith attitudes in a loving way (Romans 14). "So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another." (Romans 14:12-13) Do we do that? No! Even Christians didn't in Paul's time either - see Romans 15. But we should - that's the point. And we can't live better purely by our own efforts but only with mutual support and God working in us (Romans 16). How does that sound to you? Can we suspend our judgement and let God do what he wants in and through us? Could he even have glorious surprises for us when we recognise him working in ways we could never have expected from our human understanding of the law?
@@BernLeckie Bern, I know where you are coming from, and I can agree with much of what you are saying. I certainly do understand God's grace unto salvation. God is love, that is His greatest attribute, but how do we define and exercise, "love"? God in His love, gave the human race commandments to live by, commandments that were for our good, not ones that are merely there to spoil our happiness. Mankind was created for God. The first and greatest command is to love God with all our being. That admittedly is humanly impossible, because of the sin condition we are born into the world with. However, as Christians, our orientation in life should be to live up to that. If God, having become our new father in the Spirit, tells us that sinful actions are not pleasing to Him, in love for Him, we look to bow to His commands. Now what this whole thing is coming down to is the definition of God's law. Not to minimize any sin, there are some things the Church, that Jesus died for, historically, has said, that they could not tolerate, in or out of the Church. Sins that lead to death and separation from God forever. However, in the mainstream of Christendom today, many of those that call themselves part of Christ, have caved into the culture's demands, and violated God's law, sometimes with the idea that it is "love" for people to do so. But the true Church, that God knows as His, is still striving to live for Him, in love for Him. Jesus said, "if you love me, keep my commandments". But now again, we have to define what the commandments are. People say that Jesus never addressed homosexuality, but unless someone is trying to modify definitions, it is plain throughout scripture, that this is not a part of God's order and plan for humanity. The arguments in favor of this behavior are very compelling, and we as Christians are not trying to be hateful toward people with this orientation. However, I believe, that true Christians, cannot be persuaded to cave into the new definitions of how to see God's law. God knows that His Church, would always be in conflict with the culture of the world, so here we are! What people outside the Church do, is one thing, but what the Church stands for is another. If we do not draw the line on things, then we are not the Church, the light of the world, simple as that, so we certainly must make judgments on matters. Jesus calls to all people to repent and believe in him, for the forgiveness of sins and to be sanctified, forsaking our sins, for his sake and for ours too. Without Christ's power, this is impossible, but he is able to save. My heart goes out for people with this orientation, for I can well imagine their inner struggle, but as for being in Christ, I cannot say something different. But that does not mean that I hate people over it, no I empathize. All I can say is that, for the Church, this is the way it always has been and always will be. We cannot be right with God if we are in disagreement with His laws and precepts, for this is how it all started in Genesis 3. In Christ, and in love for him, here I stand, and only by his power. The power that changed me radically, and is still changing me. Glory to God, for his dying for me, that I might die to myself and my sins, and live for Him, as I face my challenges in the flesh too.
@@gordoncrawley5826 Thank you again for your thoughtful reply. I think we agree on quite a bit, so I hope it might be helpful to explore where we might have misunderstandings which perhaps make our views seem more opposed than they are. I recognise that there's a framework of "conservative" vs. "liberal" or "progressive" which is more commonly referred to in the US than in the UK where Severn Vineyard and I are based. This might be simplifying too much, but my perception is that, when people adopt this framework to explain current tensions in culture and society, people's understanding can quickly polarise to an extreme view on one side or the other, and people can find lots of reasons to mistrust the actions and motivations of those on the other side. Why do I think this is relevant here? Your view that "many of those that call themselves part of Christ have caved into culture's demands" is one I've often heard from people I would consider more conservative than myself. I can see why people think this - if it seems that someone is proposing a departure from the law, this must seem disrespectful to God, and it must seem quite possible that supporters of what would lead to a change are either being led by culture, perhaps desperate to chase an audience, or simply depraved and devoid of any commitment to avoid sin. One commenter on this page wrote "ANYTHING GOES" as their reflection of what they either thought was being promoted or what was happening in society. I get that conservatives therefore doubt the motivation and integrity of progressives. It would be fair for you to perceive my views as progressive, but I wonder if I can explain my motivation a little. I absolutely agree with you on the necessity of dealing with sin. I believe that because I believe in Jesus, and I want to follow him faithfully. I also believe that Jesus consistently pushed for progress in society - not according to a human design, but according to God's kingdom design. God is far more concerned than we tend to be about sin because he loves us. He doesn't want us to cause or prolong suffering and injustice. This is why I am absolutely not a supporter of "ANYTHING GOES". Nor is any other believer I know, conservative or progressive. If we've taken in just a fraction of Jesus' teaching, heart, mind or Spirit, we are going to look at the world and think "life must be better than this." I think we'd agree that this is what God wants, and that Jesus leads believers into dealing with this. Perhaps we are only disagreeing about how. I might be wrong about this, but my view of conservatives is that they have a tendency to point to the law and traditions as sources in a way which might be less than helpful. I see Jesus challenging the conservative Pharisees of his time and wonder why conservatively minded followers of Jesus today would want to repeat any of the Pharisees' mistakes. They loved God so much, but overemphasised the role of the law in regulating their behaviour. This led to more injustices and suffering than God wanted. Prophets had previously warned Israel about this and, in New Testament times, the Spirit led Peter, Paul and others through a massive reconsideration of the role of the law. It seemed that God's aim was not to scrap all sense of right and wrong (as conservatives today seem to accuse liberals of wanting), but to replace the mechanisms by which God's will could be done. Believers could, for the first time, have the Spirit living in their hearts and minds, and find God's true law written there as a result. To make this happen, believers' hearts and minds would have to change. This is what Jesus first called followers to do - translated into Greek for the gospels as "metanoia", we read the word "repent" in English Bibles, but I think that over time we might have limited our understanding of this too much to mean "say sorry and change behaviour" rather than embrace its original meaning of "change your mind." What I find Paul doing in his letter to the Romans is walking believers through the process of how and why God wants to do this with us. Our attempts to adhere to the law by human effort failed. The law could not save us. That does not mean that we liberalise everything instead, but that we follow Jesus and let him truly change our minds. This, in my view, means that we can also end up inspired by God to view the law in a different way. We might also be led, by God and not by society, to change some details of our interpretation of law if this results in what God wants, to reduce injustice and suffering as his kingdom comes and his will is done. This requires careful testing, and the New Testament shows us that it's likely to be controversial (look at the arguments people had over whether or not Christians should adhere to all aspects of Jewish law), but God's end goal is glorious - not only could we live quite well, as best we could trying to keep to the law, we could start to do the good things that people who heard Jesus said were impossible. I think I get why anyone would be anxious and sensitive about any attempt to change our minds about what God meant by "sexual immorality", even if the interpretation is led by the Spirit. We've all spent years aware of our own battles, perhaps between desire and health, or between lust and faithfulness in relationships. If we have taken Jesus seriously, we've probably been through a journey from thinking he was demanding too much to, hopefully, enjoying the life he enables when his Spirit produces fruit, including love and self-control, in our lives. I think it's understandable and horribly easy to look at other people with different sexual desires, or with self-giving "agape" love expressed in unexpected ways, and conclude that they need to become more like us if they're going to be saved! It has taken many years and much nudging, by the Spirit, I believe, for me to change my mind about some of this. But it's not unprecedented or unbiblical for people to change their minds - it happens a lot in Acts, it's what the Spirit does! I don't expect we'll suddenly start agreeing on all of this as a result of a comments thread, but I wonder if you could help me by pointing out where and why you think I might be making a mistake in expecting the Spirit to lead us into a new and more effective understanding of God's heart, mind and word to us?
@@BernLeckie When we see the 10 Commandments, it says, "thou shall not" and leaves no wiggle room, the law is absolute, not fluid. It is not up for discussion because God is a sovereign God, He knows all things, and knows the best order for mankind, that he has made. Sin came into the world, and death because of sin, and it happened when Eve made the mistake of having dialogue with the serpent. He challenged the one law that God gave to Adam and Eve, by phrasing it, "did God really say, you shall not eat of every tree of the garden". The serpent set up the dialogue on his terms, drawing her into the conversation. She responded with what God had said about not eating the fruit or they would die, to which the serpent said flatly, "You will not surely die" then proceeded to show her the benefits of her eating the fruit. A very convincing argument which tempted Eve to take the fruit and eat it. Adam ate too, probably because he saw that Eve did not die, so he ate also. Their eyes were opened, knowing good and evil, but they died spiritually. Knowing good and evil, means they felt they could now make their own decisions and not anymore needed to follow God's absolute rule of law. They could now say to God, yes you said that but, look at it this way, then you will see our point. Every since that day the whole human race has taken on this attitude. People think they are like God and can make their own rules or modify the rules because of some circumstance or situation. But God has the last say, because, He says to mankind, surely you will die and face the judgment. I know that in Christ our sins are forgiven, but it involves confession and repentance. Confession is the first step toward repentance, repentance meaning a turning from sin. Justification comes first, but sanctification should follow naturally and necessarily. We cannot be sanctified if we do not confess that what we do is indeed sin. If we disagree with God's law, or try to modify it we cannot be right with God. But since the garden and the fall of mankind, it is our human nature to be rebellious against God's law. However, if in Christ, we should look to obey the law, for the law is holy, righteous and good. Being born again, we are a new creation, and the Holy Spirit gives us power over our sins. I deeply empathize with those who are troubled over sexual sins as it is a powerful force in our lives. But to me, it is very plain that God has given us an order to follow and prohibitions, to maintain sexual purity, in His word. As a Christian I may not always perform the law, but nevertheless, I hold up the standard of God's law, trusting in His judgments as being righteous and true.
@@gordoncrawley5826 Thanks again for your thoughtfulness. I especially love that we share a recognition that God's law is important and that, nevertheless, we don't always perform it. On a public comments thread, we probably won't press each other too much on why, but I can confess that for me, it's a mix of not feeling able to do all the things I think God wants, still wanting to do things God doesn't want, and to some extent trying to justify my personal failures sometimes with the idea that maybe some of it just doesn't count any more because of Jesus because... nebulous reasons. The struggle is real, I admit. But let's not leave it at that, because you raise important points and make some bold statements about the role of the law! "No wiggle room" - I love this. It's a piercing critique if my attitude is anything like "I understand the law, but I want to get away with as much as I can because I believe in Jesus - what can I get away with?" I would love to say I never feel like this, but I think maybe we both relate to your "wiggle room" term because we do - well, I do, anyway. So what next? "the law is absolute, not fluid" - this seems like a great remedy to wiggle room. It would counterbalance our wobbliness with certainty, right? "It is not up for discussion" - do you think, though? Have you spent any time with Jewish scholars or read any Rabbinic literature. My goodness - discussion of the law is a massive thing. How, for example, do you read "You shall not do any work" on the Sabbath? There were entire schools of thought devoted to varying interpretations of this, and there still are, with modern Jews ranging from not going into the office to the complete avoidance of touching buttons which would cause work to be done. What's your stance on this? Do you think Jesus clarified the law for us by doing things like taking a walk and cracking open some grain on the Sabbath, which drew criticism from the Pharisees, or did he even nullify this law for his followers? I think these are tough questions for legal scholars, don't you? And that's not even getting into the tricky business of what should happen when the Sabbath is broken, according to the law. Even if we ignore that and focus purely on the 10 Commandments (not that I can find a reference in the New Testament to say we should do that - have I missed one?), how are we really doing on the others? What about "You shall not make for yourself an image..."? Christians wiggle a lot with this one! We've told ourselves that this is about idol worship, but that's very much an interpretation, and not one shared by every reader. Does it matter that we've created an image-sharing culture that can easily distract and lead us into sin? I'm not being facetious - I'm looking at a bunch of images generated by the UA-cam algorithm on the side of the comments here, and it's distracting! Maybe we'd be better off doing something else. Or maybe we need some guidance on how to interpret all of this properly, personally, spiritually, so that its purpose can be fulfilled in us. Maybe Jesus and the Spirit can do that in us, with more powerful and beneficial results than absolutely regulated, religiously uniform behaviour could ever have. Here's what I'm thinking about the relationship between Christ and the law. We can do all the legal scholarship and try all the religious devotion in the world and not recognise Christ. But when we do recognise Christ, he can bring the law to life in us, so that its purpose is fulfilled. We have to get this the right way round. We can't understand Jesus as a result of (our best attempts at) submission to the law, but we can understand the law as a result of submission to Jesus. I think we might agree that it's only through Jesus that can obey the first commandment - "You shall have no other gods". We know, because of Jesus, that this is about more than denying the existence of Zeus, Poseidon, etc. It's about our tendency to put anything else ahead of God, like our desires for self-preservation, money or comfort. We also know, from the gospels, that Jesus' commands on how to live up to this did vary from person to person - or maybe you believe differently? If so, how did selling all your possessions go for you? (Matthew 19:21) Here's the point I'm trying to make - I'm agreeing with you that wiggling is not a good thing, and that recognising and overcoming sin is vital for us. That includes sexual sin, of course. But when we try and make sense of how to do this by starting with "here's the law", we fail. We have to start with Jesus, then raise our expectations of what God can do in us rather than lower them in a wiggly way. Along the way, looking at scripture and not just at life experience, I believe we have to recognise that Jesus has said different things to different people. We need his Spirit to interpret the law and apply it to us, so that we aren't just appearing to be sinless, but that we genuinely become free from sin. What does this mean for me? Avoiding sexual immorality doesn't just mean avoiding sex with other men, it means avoiding sex with (and, according to Jesus, desire for) men or women - anyone except my wife! What does avoiding sexual immorality mean for you? If you're married, probably the same, though very importantly based around YOUR spouse rather than mine! And if you're not married, it means something else. As for what it means for someone else who would like to marry, but may be prevented from doing so for various reasons, should we approach this in a "law first" way, or a "Jesus first" way?
Jesus states in Matthew 15:18 "For out of the heart come EVIL thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person." When He states He is the fulfillment of the law, he is talking about the Jewish law as given in the Torah and acknowledged by Moses. A large part of His fulfillment is taking the punishment for the SINS of mankind in disobedience to Gods law. The law in Leviticus clearly delineates what sexual immorality consists of and Jesus died for those sins. Does that therefore make evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness and slander no longer condemned by Gods law. Of course not. Maybe you should read what Leviticus states concerning the essence of sexual immorality, those sins that Jesus took our punishment for and of which we should not partake in as they transgress God's law. Then read Paul in the context of what Jesus did for us on the cross in regard to those sins, rather than interpret Paul with added context that is not in his writing. Godspeed.
Lots of interesting things in your comment here! Have you watched the video to the end? If so, you'll know why there's a warning at the start about content which is difficult to hear, because the speaker describes some truly horrific sexual practices which are abusive and most people today would probably consider evil. So evil and sins, as you point out, are definitely real! As for what fulfilment of the law means, though, that depends on whether we regard the law in Leviticus as eternally binding on everyone who reads it, or whether it was a milestone on a journey. I'd suggest there's a lot of evidence in scripture that it was more of a milestone than a final destination. For example, Genesis describes a natural human response to pain and aggression as pushing back harder for vengeance's sake. The Jewish law limited that with "an eye for an eye" and an encouragement to delegate vengeance to God rather than keep it for ourselves. There's a direction of travel from Genesis to that law, and I believe Jesus fulfils the purpose of the law by completing the journey with "love your enemies" and "bless those who curse you". That would be impossible under law, but God makes it possible by the work of Christ in us. Does having the spirit of Christ in us nullify evil by convincing us that nothing is evil any more? Far from it! We can recognise evil and everyone's need - including our own - to be saved from it. I think that Paul's biggest challenge to us at the start of Romans, though, is to force us to reconsider where evil truly is - it can't be defined simply by pointing out people who we feel are not like us. Our tendency to do this is highlighted by the way Paul writes, what Owen referred to as a "sting operation", drawing us into the condemnation of others before we've realised that Paul includes us all in the need for forgiveness and grace, and so, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (Romans 2:1) Once we accept that the way of Christ is to let him deal with evil in us, and others, without condemnation, this should - I believe - leave us open to God renewing us, perhaps even changing our minds (see Romans 12) about some things we thought we knew. Have you ever had that experience and found God changing your mind about something you previously thought you'd understood about him, his law or his love?
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away by the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. 2 Peter 1:16,17 is an appropriate response to this video.
Or it could be an appropriate response to those who insist against all reason that we should misconstrue "male idolaters did unseemly things" as "lying with the same secs is a sin".
@@MusicalRaichu 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 abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Corinthians 6:9
@@stephenpeppin5537 I don't understand the relevance. What does a text about deliberate hurtful behaviours have to do with culturally inappropriate but consensual acts?
@@MusicalRaichu He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live. Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her. She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee. Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many. Proverbs 4:4-10
@@stephenpeppin5537 Just as I thought. You're quoting random unrelated passages and have no capacity to apply what you quote to real life. All the best, have a nice day.
Hello brother I enjoyed this man’s exegesis even though I think he’s wrong the context Isabell doctrines of demons in Genesis chapter 3 with eve genesis chapter 6 with the sons of God in Genesis chapter 11 with the tower of babel Deuteronomy 32 talks about The sons of God in the ESV translation or the net Bible older Bible translations like the king James will see the sons of Israel but the dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint says sons of God for a deeper dive into this check out Dr. Michael Heizer on the naked Bible podcast
Paul when talking about homosexuality does not speak of it in terms of violent abuse, pederasty, or non commitment. So don't put all these extra words and ideas there. If these were so common to greco-roman culture then what would prevent him from describing it that way? What he does actually describe is sexual orientation. "Men with men" (gays) and "women with women" (lesbians). These are the "degrading passions." Afterward, a "reprobate mind" is when evildoers approve of what they do and applaud others just the same ... when they are proud of what they should be ashamed of. Romans 1 is Paul's overview of past Gentile cultures that go down an immoral stepwise staircase. He is describing the society's that resulted from ungodliness. It's exactly what you see happening again now in many societies today, especially in Europe and the USA.
Paul does not mention women with women. Rom 1 basically says "their" (i.e. the idolaters') females did something you wouldn't expect them to do, and similarly "the" (i.e. the idolaters) males did unseemly things with each other. Yes, the language is negative "unclean, dishonourable, unseemly" but does not go so far as calling it sin, so neither should you. Paul's "staircase" argument reflects 1st cent. Jewish stereotypes of pagan society. But his ultimate goal is to point out that "you have no excuse whoever you are when you judge another, for in passing judgment you condemn yourself, because you the judge are doing the very same things".
@@MusicalRaichu the Romans 1 crowd is already condemned for many sins of unrighteousness including the degrading passions of homosexuality. The Jews in Romans 2 also are guilty before God in spite of the law and religion. But God is the judge, "for the wrath of God is revealed." St. Paul is also not qualified to "judge" but he was qualified to bear witness to the truth. We are obligated to also bear witness to the truth. The message of Jesus was to repent - Luke 13:3. We ought not to try and justify ourself or sin. Even Plato, who was a pagan philosopher, taught in his "Republic" that homosexuality was unnatural (against nature). And, in his "Laws" has it criminalized. Jesus said "God made them male and female." Do you imagine he taught something else concerning the joining of two into one?
@@st.christopher4854 There is no mention of homoxesuality in Rom 1 (or anywhere in the Bible or any document written before the late 19th cent). Don't confuse (a) males having secs with males, which happened for a variety of reasons, with (b) a male's innate attraction and capacity for intimacy with another male, something the text clearly does not describe. Furthermore, as I already pointed out, he does not go as far as calling their unconventional secs behaviour sinful. You need to accept what the text actually says, not read into it your preconceived ideas. All the best.
@@MusicalRaichu the wrath of God is real. Quit trying to hide behind a falsehood. Paul says in Romans 1 that we (all of us) are WITHOUT EXCUSE. So please stop trying to make excuses and read what St. Paul truly says. Homosexuality is not new, it's been around even before Sodom & Gomorrah, and that was a long time before St. Paul and Plato.
@@st.christopher4854 It always existed, but it was not understood or categorized as involving "the same secs". Patriarchal understanding had completely different categories. You cannot understand Paul or any of those ancient writers without understanding the way people used to think. Reading "homoxesuality" into these ancient writings is anachronistic and will only lead you astray. In any case, the main point is that the Bible does not say that homoxesuality is a sin. That false teaching developed from a mistranslation in 1 Cor 6.9 since around mid last century. It's complicated, but it's good news! You don't have to condemn people who are doing nothing to hurt anyone but only want to love and be loved in the way God has granted.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:2 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 1:10
@@BernLeckie The Ten Commandments were sufficient for anyone outside of the nation of Isreal in Moses' time. Anything that is also found in the New Testament still stands. Homosexuality is still counted as sin in the New Testament.
@@henryschmit3340 Interesting that you reference the Ten Commandments - I wrote a reply to another commenter about that just now! It was longer than our comments here, though, and I wouldn't disrespect you by copy/pasting. However, I think this is an important thing to get to grips with - should we take a "law first" approach or a "Jesus first" approach when understanding the link between Christianity and law? I'd suggest that, as good as the law is, the entire New Testament shows that we need Jesus first to stand any chance of living up to God's intentions and, uncomfortably, Jesus then applies the law differently for different people (e.g. Matthew 19:21 - or have you sold your possessions too?) I've discussed this more with @gordoncrawley5826. What do you think?
@@BernLeckie If it is Jesus first, then we should also follow His commands... He is the final Judge after all. “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19) Some things are not just in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament also... 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 homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) God doesn't change, and sin is still sin.
@@henryschmit3340 Amen to all you have quoted, although it's important (and part of the point of the video here) to understand what people meant at the time by these terms, which might be different from how we use them today. I hope you don't think we're trying to excuse and get away with sin here. It's more that Jesus deals with it in all of us through fulfilment of the law, as you have shared. As Jesus also demonstrated, fulfilment can look different for different people, and our instructions from him also include, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:1-3) So let's follow Jesus and not judge each other! Instead, do you mind if I ask how or why do you think God might have prompted you to focus on these verses in particular? Is there anyone you know who is particularly struggling with these issues?
@@BernLeckie Any sex outside of marriage was condemned. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. People are going to great lengths to obscure the plain meaning Paul gives.
How can simple texts like these be deliberately 'misunderstood ? Romans 26:- For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Romans 27:- And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. So... Remembering how God dealt with the perverted inhabitants of the city of Sodom; I think this video is merely another attempt to deny God's Word whilst 'normalising' the sexual perversions God detests. Luke 17:29:- “The day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.”
It’s plain as the nose on our faces that Paul is condemning homosexuality in these passages. The verbal judo going on in this video is astounding. This is such a vile deception.
'Women changing the natural use into that which is against nature' almost certainly doesn't refer to female-female sexual behaviour (which virtually no one in ancient Rome during the era of the Principate was aware even occurred - depictions of such are sparse to the point of being almost non-existent, as are literary references to it), or if it does, it is an interpolation.
I think you're misconstruing the text somewhat. The words he uses are "unclean", "dishonourable", "unseemly", so it's likely referring to consensual acts, not abusiv ones. Otherwise he would have called them "sinful" or something more serious.
Hi - thanks for your comment! The words you're referring to have a wide range of meanings in the original Greek, depending on their context - just as the English words like "dishonourable" could seem trivial in some settings (e.g. someone behaved in a dishonourable way by being a bit rude), they could also be extremely serious in others (e.g. someone had a dishonourable discharge from the army, meaning they may have committed a crime). So it's difficult to make the case that the adjectives imply consensual, non-abusive acts. Whatever Paul was precisely referring to, he was writing in a culture where abuse was prevalent, as was highly sexualised and consensual idolatry. It's likely that either of these things would have been more prominent in the mind of a reader/listener when hearing Romans 1 than a loving, consensual, same sex relationship. But it's also important to note that, whatever we conclude about this, the attention-grabbing point Paul was making in Romans 1 about sin did not turn out to be a list of things by which to condemn people - keep reading to Romans 2!
@@severnvineyard Paul is not talking about committed relationships in accordance with secs orientation which they didn't even know about. Abusiv behaviour was prevalent, but my impression of Rom 1 is that it's probably about specific idolatrous practices that were more "unseemly" than abusiv. Paul made no general statement about all secs between males being sinful. Maybe he thought it was, maybe he didn't, but the letters that have survived make no such statement.
@@MusicalRaichu The underlying premise of Romans 1 is "the Wrath of God" against the ungodliness of those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness which is why the Gentiles need the gospel. If pagan's were solely liable due to idolatry, St. Paul could have said that in one sentence. το τέλος
@@st.christopher4854 Paul is addressing the friction between Jewish and Roman Christians in Rome. Rom 1 was a stereotypical Jewish argument against pagans. His point is that the "ungodliness" was not only about the Romans but also those who judge them (Rom 2.1) who do "the very same things", namely (Rom 2.17) the Jews. The argument Paul recites does entail idolatry resulting in sins listed in 1.29-31. Before that, he mentions unconventional secs behaviour that even their own culture saw as shameful, but my point is that he does not refer to it as sinful. It was presumably consensual harming no one, so there was no basis to consider it sinful. Rom 1.27 does not appear to describe the secs abbuse that was also prevalent in Roman culture at the time, which is likely what Paul does refer to as sinful in 1 Cor 6.9.
@@MusicalRaichu in 1 Cor.6:9, Paul uses the same Greek word used in Leviticus (which clearly has homosexuality as a sin) from the Greek septuagint of the Old Testament. The Septuagint is what was widely available. The early church fathers mention the sin of homosexuality. It is a sin because it is contrary to the laws of God, creation, and nature. Homosexuality is also an insult to procreation and thus an insult and confusion to children. Same sex marriage is a mockery of what God designed and planned and instituted for man and woman. Better to honor God and fear the Lord. The world today is corrupt beyond imagination and getting worse. Now there is a group wanting to make pedophilia no longer illegal. Another group says that bestiality is a "human" right and should be legalized and should include marriage. What's next? There is no limit, no standard, just immorality. That is sin beyond measure. What more proof do you need? Look at the world you are living in. Christ will come soon in judgement against the wicked and all the ungodliness of men. And, as St. Paul says, "every mouth will be stopped." All the sexual confusion you see now happening is in fact the revealed wrath of God.
That's a lot to think about. Thanks for a new revealing approach to the verses and the subject. One thing I believe is clear. People say that homosexuality is a sin . They conveniently overlook all the other sins that are always listed along with it. I believe it's never mention alone.
@@gordoncrawley5826 Human sexuality is not the same as having sex. You really need to study more. Look up "Human Sexuality" in the Britannica. According to Romans, all human nature, which includes all human sexuality, is morally corrupt before God. This is why Romans 2:1 says, that we are inexcusable whoever we are, who condemn someone else, because in condemning someone else, we are guilty of the same. Romans 2:1 is the conclusion of chapter one and should be included in the same chapter. The Bible wasn't originally divided into chapters and doing so has caused much confusion, in particular what Romans chapter one means, because it doesn't inlcude Romans 2:1.
It is unlikely that Paul was ever privy to the intimate sexual exchanges between a man and a woman, much less between two men or two women. More likely is it that he was referring to public displays of sexuality he may have come upon in the fora and back-streets of the major cities he was wont of the visit, displays which may have offended his provincial Jewish sensibilities and which he, in his ignorance, interpreted as “men inflamed in their passions for one another”.
Although Paul would certainly condemn the sexual brutality of the Roman culture that is not his intention here. Paul would have mentioned the brutality here if that was his focus. Instead he condemned immorality in general with a long list of sins that doe include both female and male homosexuality, specifically women lusting after women and men lusting after men. This would include the dominating abuse but no where does he limit it to that and he specifically does address men with men and women with women.
Thanks! I agree it's probably not Paul's intention to condemn a particular behaviour as much as to draw on the reader or listener's general sense of things which were to be condemned. He does this using the words "they" and "them" a lot, although we probably realise at some point (with awkwardness) that Paul must also be including us among the people worthy of condemnation - this is the springboard into Romans 2. I think the issue Owen was highlighting in the video was the potential difference between our interpretation of "homosexuality" today and the abhorrent practices which served to grab readers' attention so effectively for Paul's opening to a complex text. What do you think the general message is that Paul is trying to convey across his whole letter?
Virtually no one was aware that female-female sexual attraction was a thing in ancient Rome during the era of the Principate, so the idea that Paul was condemning it is anachronistic.
The bible is a man made book with man made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man made errors : + light wasn't there before the sun + the earth wasn't there before the sun + Adam and Eve didn't exist + insects have six legs not four legs + the value of Pi isn't 3 + homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary sense + the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world + the moon doesn't produce visible light + etc etc If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't. As easy as that.
It is certainly correct that our phenomenon of “homosexuality” did not exist in the ancient world, anywhere on the globe. That is the overwhelming consensus of scholars of the history of sexuality working across a whole array of disciplines. Nothing Paul or any ancient person or text said can legitimately be claimed to address or have in mind or apply to our “homosexuality” and LGBTs. All of it was uttered, written, and formulated without the slightest conception or awareness of phenomena such as ours. Indeed, the bulk of the transitional period from an ancient to a modern construction of sexuality would come only millennia later, roughly 1600 to 1800 CE, though the transition wouldn’t be complete in the modern industrialized world until well into the 20th century. During that transitional period, as in early attempts to look back across the divide, and during encounters between people from different parts of the world, great confusion reigned. People found it extraordinarily difficult to understand a different construction of sexuality, or even that they were encountering such. The early ethnographic literature is replete with tales of utter sexual incomprehension. Paul can no more address our phenomena than Anacreon or Plato can. And though, in unbridled fits of reader-response criticism, some modern readers can enjoy reading some Anacreon, the ancient Greek poet would have been as horrified by our “homosexuality” as modern LGBTs would be were they to conduct themselves by Anacreon’s assumed sexual code. However, the portrait you paint of ancient pederasty is a stilted, one-sided, cartoonish caricature that would make just about any classicist or historian of ancient sexuality laugh in your face. You really need to read some ancient pederastic poetry. Start with _Greek Anthology_ 12, the so-called “musa puerilis.” Then move on to the pederastic poetry of Anacreon, Bacchylides, Callimachus, Catullus (Iuventus poems), Horace ( _Carm._ 4.1 ), Ibycus, Theocritus (among the _Idylls_ ), Theognis, Tibullus (3.11), and Vergil ( _Ecl._ 2 ). You may also wish to stop getting your information from inexpert and never entirely accurate biblical scholars, none of whom are recognized experts on the history of sexuality. Read the expert secondary literature directly. You can start with the articles “homosexuality, male” and “homosexuality, female” in _The Oxford Classical Dictionary_ (online ed.), and the sources cited therein. You can then get a more global approach from the following: Aldrich, Robert, ed. _Gay Life and Culture: A World History._ New York: Universe Publishing, 2006. Edsall, Nicholas C. _Toward Stonewall: Homosexuality and Society in the Modern Western World._ Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2003.
To get the truth, see videos and writings of scholar, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, who is the leading expert on the Bible and homosexulity. All of the attempts you find on the internet to downplay Paul's condematio of homosexuality in general are not true and twisting of the words for particular agendas.
According to Romans and according to the findings of modern behavioral science, no man or woman has perfect sexuality; "for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." Falling short of the Glory of God is the same thing as falling short of the perfect sexuality of Jesus. The conclusion of Romans regarding human sin is this: "Therefore you are inexcusable, O one, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." And Jesus says, "judge not that you be not judged." When Jesus walked this earth, he condemned no one other than self-righteous religious hypocrites, even though historians estimate that at least 40% of the crowds who hung around Jesus were LGBTQ folks.
Good question! I guess people have always worked this out by trying and failing to have babies, and then coming up with different ideas for how to get around that. This would include looking to other gods and goddesses, as well as trying lots of different rituals which might have been seen to have power if you knew just a story of someone who had a baby after engaging with them. Scholars today doubt there were many cults which were purely focused on fertility, but there's an abundance of archaeological evidence for widespread symbols of fertility being found on streets all over the ancient world.
Great question! Lots of things come from physical intimacy, as I'm sure your own experience confirms. Some are unhealthy, e.g. desires which might undermine another relationship commitment, and some are healthy, e.g. the reinforcement of a relationship commitment. What other fruit are you thinking of?
The last argument of what Paul might think of a modern consensual same sex relationship is almost not able to be discerned. Paul and the Roman Empire as you said, had little to no examples of these relationships. They may have existed rarely but as you said. They would probably be frowned upon by even the male population committing pedastry and rape. Consensual sexual relationships were far less of a norm in that culture. So to be sure it can only be speculated what Paul might think of the modern. But the fact remains that same sex marriage is a newer concept and also consensual same sex relationships have always happened. I'm sure Paul would not be in favor of putting same sex attracted people to death. Nor victims of abuse. It's obvious that Paul gave a damn about people in general.
Hello - thanks for your thoughtful reply! Indeed, it's hard to discern what anyone thought of something they had rarely, if ever, encountered and would not be codified into law for 2,000 years after their life! Part of that discernment is what you're engaging with here - trying to work out what was in the writer's culture and what could have been their intention for writing. Romans is a complex text, well worth absorbing in full - and yet, we only have to get as far as chapter 2 to realise chapter 1 isn't a basis to condemn anyone. Thanks for considering this with us!
This is a good explanation of the times in which Paul wrote his letters. We must always strive to understand what the writer meant as they described their understanding of God, who is completely unlike us. You've done a great job in setting the culture Paul was speaking to. As a priest in the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, I am grateful for this video and hope it helps further the acceptance of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
@@davidlafleche1142 "why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15.10)
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:21-27
Didn't people say something similar as the US descended into Civil War over slavery, though? Wouldn't it be good if God could grab our attention and change the world through us without actual armed violence?
@@MrWholphin No - did I suggest that? I'm sure you are aware, though, that interpretation of the Bible played a big part in motivating participation in the Civil War, on both sides, and many fought for the realisation that many centuries of "scholarship, translators and tradition", as you put it, had not been correct. Freedom should always have triumphed over slavery. Would you not agree?
Owen, if it is Jewish law forbidding something, is Paul not speaking out against Jewish law. He was meant to be preaching to gentiles so was he not trying to get people to move away from Jewish culture an religious practices
@@davidlafleche1142 I think it's hard to say whether or not Paul was "against" the law - he recognised as divine, but also that it was not going to save people. As far as I understand, that's not God's fault but our failings in the way we treat the law and our lack the ability both to live up to it and to let it shape our hearts and minds. We need Christ for that. With our minds changed by Christ, we then tend to see life, love and law differently. Have you experienced this?
All your sins are equal in the eyes of God. People should try to solve there own faults before they condem others for theres. Love is the greatest comandment perhaps we should start there. To hate people for being gay would then be to break the greatest comandment.
@@communitybirthcenter321 Thanks for your comments! There are lots of other rules in Leviticus - how many do you follow? (Genuinely interested and not trying to start an argument, by the way - I just find it fascinating how some of us focus on certain laws and overlook others, and wonder why!)
@@communitybirthcenter321 Research with identical twins, who were raised apart, indicates there is frequently a genetic component--but not always. Other research, and especially that by proponents of "depth psychology" (eg, Freud, Jung, Adler, etc.) emphasizes early childhood experiences. While many factors have been identified as influential in the development of one's sexual orientation, there is no theory has applies to all cases. The only thing that can be said for sure, is that individuals do not choose their sexual orientations.
@@BernLeckie Hi. I mean no animosity either, and appreciate the discussion. I believe in every concept-and law- in the bible . I do think not all translation is accurate. I try to look at the original language as much as possible when something seems ambiguous. Male homosexuality is a pretty clear sin. As far as the other OT and NT laws, sure, I love the wisdom in all of them and try my best to follow them, eat kosher, and share the knowledge. But I am not legalistic about the lesser things such as food or cleanliness law, nor would I put that on my brethren. But male homosexuality is extremely destructive to women, children, the family unit, and therefore society as a whole, so I do not condone that in any way. When I am unsure about the importance of a law. I try to adhere to the Jewish belief that the 3 worst sins are idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder; and that it is better to die than to commit them. Happy Christmas~☆ 😊
@@Pootycat8359 hi. I do believe feeling gay or gayness can be multifactorial. My experience is that it mostly stems from a bonding issue with the same-sex parent... But God has laid down the law for us to live our best lives, which affects those around us and beyond us. Our feelings are not always worthy of being acted on because they lead to sin. And living a gay lifestyle is one of them (according to the bible). Happy Christmas~☆¤
It seems that today's pederasty manifests itself in very different ways because the Christian concept of Marriage has been incorporated in our legal system so as to make that institution quite different from that of the Roman notion of marriage. To the extent that it seems to image itself as like a rather elevated relationship that is ideal in our culture, of an equity between the sexes, then it gains acceptance. But that brings to mind the issue of the actual sexual practices in todays society especially that in the gay “community.” The open brutality and inequities of the Roman system are not permitted. But they may take place subrosa. and as they become more accepted as normal, they may become more overt as Christian morality loses its hold on public opinion.
Paul is against circumcision Titus 1: 10.. it's an everlasting covenant.. moreover Peter and Paul separated gospel due to Circumcision.. Galatians 2: 7- 8.. Paul was the first pope
Paul explains why the circumcision was not necessary. We have to go back to Abraham who is the father of the faith. For it was he that the promise of a substitute son was made too. And Abraham was called righteous because he believed God was able to do that which he promised. Abraham was before the law, the temple and the priesthood and he was called righteous before he was circumcised. The promise now fulfilled there is no need for circumcision.
@@inthenamemosthigh The pharisees doctrine was just that. Their doctrine. They thought living by their rules justified them. It was jesus who told them they clean up the outer but inside are filthy. If you go back to the beginning and read what God wanted from them, and that being man having hearts of flesh and the laws written on them, not stone tablets. We can almost stop right there.
@@dw3403 the gospel of the uncircumcised.. and you are already saved and your faith can move mountains unto the sea.. and oh the way you speak.. oh so Grace full.. .. you are so shining bright.. go on with your graceful self and prance on... Your empty word..🐖 trampling on what is precious..
@@inthenamemosthigh 2 Corinthians 11:3 - But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
God already defined the wickedness of homosexuality by saying “ it is perversion “ and demonstrated his opinion by sending fire and brimstone on sodom and Gomorrah
Paul is anyway a special guy: first he hates Christians, then he hates Jew-Christians, then he hates sex in general and even within man-woman marriage he preferes no sex.
I don't care what Saul/Paul said about it. Jesus didn't say a thing about it. By the way, Saul/Paul went from persecuting Christians before his "conversion" to continuing to persecute Christians after it. Saul/Paul is just another human with an opinion (on too many things I think). His opinions are no more noble or Christian than mine.
2nd comment im 59 and finding stuff out from the Bible i never saw before like a pastor once told us he pointed out when joshua an his men went into a camp one of the soldiers just went into a tent speared this guy in his back while he was having sex with the woman an the spear went through her too killed em both some ppl will tut tut dont wanna hear about that but hey it is what it is and noah got drunk after the flood (i would of to ) lol seriously though he was so drunk under the grapevine they grew grapes his son had to cover him up lots daughters after they left sodom got their father drunk slept with him for continuation of children um i would of waited to meet a christian guy but it is what it is its good to know about our Biblical brothers an sisters from genisis to revelation their all inspiring even up to this day theres some doozy stories there but even though they sound terrible the terrible bits i mean its all in Gods hands though amen
Personally I would not worry too much about what Paul wrote. The source of his inspiration was mostly imaginary and then presented in the context of Bronze Age ignorance and prejudice. Are you concerned about what Muhammad said or Joseph Smith or countless others. Would you have been if you were bought up in a different family or culture. I admire your sincerity though. Good luck.
ever heard of the Maka'hiki festival in ancient Hawaii??? pretty distrurbig, and still hugely corrupt....huge amounts of kids are molested and twisted....OMG such disturbing behavior...]
It doesn't matter what Romans thought was right or wrong. It's about what the Bible says God says that's right. We as Christian's can only try to live like God wants. Paul was Jewish faith then Jesus opened his eyes as a Christian. Your trying to make it sound like Paul lived the life of a Unsaved Roman. May God bless everyone and their purity of marriage between man and women!!!!
If you don’t know how to spiritually discern, you have been listening to too many men, and need to seek Jesus with all your heart, read his word, the King James Bible is good, as Catholic and Anglican leaders are praising Islam , which denies the most important part of the Bible, Islam say Jesus did not die on the cross!!!! Average Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims should give this much deep thought. 1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Trust no man Psalms 146:3 “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” God gives you the increase in knowledge through his Spirit, 1 John 3:24 “And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.” 1 Corinthians 3:16 “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” This is Paul speaking , but if you know the spiritual things of God, you know it is Jesus speaking to you, 1 Corinthians 14:37 “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” And Jesus tells us clearly through Paul that while we are under Grace, sin is still sin, don’t do it, all fornication is still sin, Romans 6:15 “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” Don’t trust any man, ask Jesus for understanding and read his word King James Bible is good) continually , Matthew 15:9 “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Colossians 2:22 “Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?” 1 Corinthians 2:5 “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, 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.” John 4:24 “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Read the Bible continually, ask Jesus for understanding, he is the way to Increasing your knowledge of him, 1 Corinthians 3:7 “So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” A planter is a sower of the word, he that watereth helps the word grow, but as you can see, men are not anything,
Hi Gary - thanks for the reminder to seek Jesus and discern - it's something I love to do, and I'm sure I should also do more. When you have done this, what have you seen God change your mind about the most?
For bern Leckie, hope this helps with discernment, the law is till good, even though we are under grace, Romans 3:31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 6:15 “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” Romans 7:7 “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Romans 1:26 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:” Romans 1:27 “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” 1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, 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.” Jude 1:7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
Only ONE Gospel: Gospel of Reconciliation. All other gospels are accursed. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
Homosexuality IS condemned by GOD in the bible in both the new and old testament scriptures multiple times. God created marriage to be one man with one woman. Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind. We are pretty much there now.
Ok… Paul’s letters are obviously very well written and reflect Paul’s background of a polyglot and scholar. My question is this: do Romans 1:27,28 and the subsequent verses referring to homosexuality reflect Paul’s personal opinion, or are they a revelation from God? Because if they are an opinion, we ought not forget that Paul got at least one thing wrong: he persecuted the early followers of Christ until he himself got to see that the myth was true. (or so scripture claims). Further, his authority to do so proceeded from the Old Testament (or the herein mentioned Jewish law). PS I think that the language “committed shameful acts with one another” rather than “unto other men” points to consensual homosexual relations rather than male rape/exploitation…
Rom 1 is not about homoxesuality. The category of "liking the same secs" would have been foreign before its invention around a century ago. His phrase "males in males" fits what we might loosely classify as homoxesual today, but as the speaker explains, the majority of men having secs with males in Rome was not based on mutual attraction or romantic interest. Your translation seems a bit biased. It said "working unseemliness one with another". "Shameless" is too strong, and "one with another" does not necessarily imply mutual desire, just one person doing something to another within the group, the group in this case being "male idolaters". That said, I disagree that Rom 1 is about anything abusiv. the language is too weak. the idolators were doing things that most people would consider shameful, but it doesn't say they were sinning.
@@MusicalRaichu I rather respectfully disagree. I have not read Paul’s letters in the original language they were written in, presumably Ancient Greek? (I’m only making baby steps in contemporary Greek.) Therefore I can’t comment on “unseemly” versus “shameful”, but even if that is the case, I understand them to be synonymous. Thinking in a simple minded way, why would Paul bother writing at such length when he received no money, after what was an apparent extreme change of mind as to Christ. I doubt he would write about something he believes the Lord views as merely “unseemly”, that is to say, you can do it, but it’s bad manners. Further, considering his Jewish background, it appears that the stronger word “shameful” seems appropriate. I am referring to the Old Testament quoted by the apostles themselves. If this passage doesn’t refer to homosexuality, what are we to understand these shameful acts that occur between men to be? You claim “unseemly” is the word Paul used; what are they? Forgetting each other’s birthdays and being mildly rude to each other? Finally: no no no! With each other is very distinct from men committing shameless acts *to* other men. The Bible is very precise with the language it uses. For example, the Lord asked “Did you murder and also inherit?” and not “Did you steal?” I have no doubt as what Paul means, my question is on what authority did he say all of this?
@@jordans962 Oh it's definitely about males having secs with males. The issue is more subtle and will take some length to explain. What you call homoxesuality is an artificial category invented in modern times that was intended to combine two categories, androphilic males and gynephilic females. More loosely, however, people have used the term to refer to homogenitality, males having secs with males and women having secs with females regardless of secs orientation. Paul's reference to males setting aside the expected use of the female and engaging in unseemly behaviour with other males falls within the broader sense of the modern category of homoxesuality. However, there was no such category at the time. People didn't classify secs according to whether partners were same/opposite. Nor does anywhere in the Bible state that two men in bed is wrong specifically because they're "the same secs". Imposing a modern category on an ancient text only leads you astray. Furthermore, it fails to describe what we mean by "gay" today. The best counter example I can think of is a boy raised in a Christian home accepting the faith, reaching adolescence to find himself attracted to guys instead of girls, always behaving with decency and respect, and eventually entering a committed relationship with a man. He has not rejected the truth about God, worshipped idols, set aside the use of the female which he never had, burned with appetite, behaved unseemly, been filled with all kinds of evil or approved of wrongdoing. Not a single word of Paul's description matches. It's pretty obvious it's about an unrelated phenomenon with less than superficial similarity. My point is that Paul's statement that idolatrous Roman males were doing shameful things is not the same statement that all same-secs acts are inherently sinful. It just doesn't say that. The latter idea came about because of the mistranslation of male-bedder in 1 Cor 6.9 and then imposed on Rom 1.27 even though neither text makes such a statement. For comparison, note traditional church teaching that secs should only be for reproduction. All non-reproductive secs was considered sin. Traditional interpretation of Rom 1.27 was that it was wrong for the same reason that say husband and wife having oral secs was wrong. So what does Rom 1.27 say, the traditional view that "non-reproductive secs is a sin", or the modern view that "same-secs secs is a sin"? Or maybe it just literally says that Roman idolaters did indecent things, corroborating what we already know from history. Sorry for a long reply, but this issue is complicated. That's why there's so much confusion and disagreement. It's taken me months of research to uncover what the Biblical texts do and do not say, why modern Christians think what they do, and the history of how the various views came about. There's still much I don't know, but it would probably take years to study the topic completely.
Well the KJV has "indecent acts" which points not to sexual expressions in consensual homosexual relationships in private, but consensual homosexual connexions in public, i.e., "gross indecency", like in those frenzied orgies at the Temples of Cybele.
The deeper facts have nothing to do with male or female, no jew or gentile ect.........flesh and blood one mind does all good and evil by ONE power the boss of all imagination's that was before creation is the oldest facts called God in all life.
Doctrines of demons Paul was talking about genesis in chapter 3 the serpent was telling Eve that she could be something other than what God intended to be like God in Genesis chapter 6 the sons of God came down from heaven and fornicated with women in chapter 11 the tower of babel where God gave man over to Lester sons of God as stated in Deuteronomy chapter 32That is what Paul is talking about
Great question - I think it needs some careful unpacking (so apologies if this seems a bit long...) First, what do we mean by "homosexuality"? One of the points Owen makes in the video is that what would have come to the mind of a first century person would be different from what comes to mind to us today. Paul was not justifying any of the behaviours he listed in the second half of Romans 1, but what he was drawing readers/listeners in to condemn was a sense of "them", other people who ought to be condemned, but he surprises the reader/listener by including everyone (including them, and us!) in his rhetoric. So in Romans 2, Paul makes the point that, as we should all stand condemned, none of us should condemn each other, even where we see sin. There is then a big journey Paul takes people through, leading to Jesus and, on the other side of receiving grace from him, the need for having our minds changed, getting to know God's will and living with believers who have different views on important issues of conscience. Sin is still very much a thing, not to be taken lightly! But what constitutes sin for different people remains a question, at least in some cases. Christians argued then about whether breaking the law on eating food offered to (false) idols was sin - Paul directed people to be Jesus-centred, loving and sensitive to each other. Christians argue now about whether there might be agape, self-giving love which we know comes from God (1 John 4) expressed in same-sex relationships, and I think that's an issue we need to treat in a similar way to the divisive issues of Paul's time. What do you think, though?
I always thought that all homosexuals were born in that condition, through no choice of their own. God would never hold them responsible. Thank you for reinforcing my logic by explaining Paul's words in the context of history.
Genetically determinism is equivalent to "the devil made me do it," just substitute genes. It's unscientific, and frankly dehumanizing, to strip away ones agency in complex decision making
Jesus sets us free from sin. But we must repent and put our trust and faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness of our sins in order to receive the free gift of salvation.
@@heathers4961 Amen to that! Paul's challenge to the Romans, though, is to let God become the driver of our responses to sin, including how we define sin and what we do about it, in ourselves and when we see it in others. "Repent" is a fantastic word - I love it because it's so much bigger than what we've sometimes reduced it to. It involves letting God change our minds, and I've found that included some changes of mind about what I thought the law meant. Have you ever experienced this too?
@@BernLeckie I'm not sure what you mean. God does change us but we must be obedient and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit we cannot rightly divide or properly understand scripture. The progressive movement has blasphemed Jesus and the scriptures in so many ways because those in the movement are either not following the Holy Spirit or they have not been born again.
All of these things described by Paul have been carried out by organized Christian religion. And Christianity became the one thing Jesus most despised, a legalistic institution consumed by a desire for power. And gang rape or forced sex is not homosexuality.
Hi Christopher - it's painful to reflect on this, isn't it? The institutional church has done a lot which has brought harm into the world, and I shudder to think of how I might have been part of it if I'd been there, persecuting scientists when the church did, defending slavery when the church did, pursuing empire and the 'civilisation' of other cultures when the governments involved the church in this, etc etc. Where I find some hope in Paul's letter to the Romans, though, is that I think it shows how God has known we needed saving from our corruption, and how Jesus brings us this even when we have actively pushed for things God didn't want for us. I also think Jesus loves his church - but would you agree? Do you think Jesus might still be able to save us?
@@BernLeckie I think Jesus expects us to save the church from itself. That was his example in multiple biblical references to the religious authorities of His time. That is the lesson too often forgotten by centuries of Christians misled into legalism just as the religious authorities did back then. That castigation was not about those authorities being Jewish, as it was misconstrued over millennia by Christian anti-Semitics, even Martin Luther. All because of biblical literalism, really. Sadly, this is also the driver behind so much latter-day religious deception. The entire reason the Christian evangelical community in the US has leaned into religious authoritarianism is the addiction to political power that Jesus and John the Baptist condemned among religious authorities during their ministry. To me, this is a call to action that Christians either ignore completely or toss their hats into the Personal Salvation game as a means to exonerate themselves from responsibility on this earth. In my new book Honest-To-Goodness: Why Christianity Needs A Reality Check and How to Make It Happen, I call that "salvation greed." Dismissing Jesus' call to repentance and liberation from legalism for selfish purposes...all while claiming "righteousness." It's the same damned thing Jesus despised. And this despicably literal tradition of hating on gay people is just ugly, ignorant anachronism. It's like believing in demons. A belief so outdated it deserves to be relegated just like so many useless laws from Leviticus and more.
@@ChristopherCudworth Thanks for the steer towards your book - I will have to read it! I enjoyed the Amazon preview which included the early chapter inspired by the Sagrada Familia - one of my favourite buildings. Have you been? I found it awe inspiring in a way that I've never (yet) found a church sermon, and I'm still struck by the power of our God-given creativity to help us share and explore the richness of what God has been doing in the world. I share your frustration over literalism, and wonder why we struggle so much to recognise how much we could gain from seeing scripture and life from perspectives other than our own. As much as we can get entrenched, I believe Jesus does offer the best way out, though, in an active sense, not just expecting us to save ourselves (thank God!). In fact, I think Romans is a walk through that Jesus-centred way, even though it begins, intentionally, with material which can distract us - it ends with people who hold different beliefs being brought together in Christ. What's your take on Romans as a whole?
@@BernLeckie Yes, we visited Sagrada Familia four years ago. I was just beginning work on my book and there's a chapter titled Call of the Sagrada Familia. Here's an excerpt: Standing before the Sagrada Familia and wandering its interior spaces is an immersion in natural symbolism. Yet, the sacred family still resides within the theme. It is that balance of wonder and appreciation that makes the experience so unique and meaningful. Gaudí’s celebration of Creation through architecture mimics the methods scripture employs in using natural metaphors to depict spiritual concepts and principles.4 In the Bible, symbols such as the Tree of Life, the River of Life, and Living Water depict the relationship between God and Creation. The same holds true with symbols of the Trinity in the Rock, the Dove, and the Lamb. Throughout scripture, we also find God appearing through thunder, lightning, clouds, and smoke. Meanwhile, humanity takes on prosaic forms, such as frail blades of grass or a humbling pile of dry bones. These, too, are organic symbols, signifying the transient nature of our fleshly lives while calling us to live as fully as we can. The role of scripture’s organic symbols should be celebrated, not neglected. They create a bridge between our spiritual and material lives and teach us how to appreciate God’s will... “on earth as it is in heaven.” Yet, some people refuse to look at scripture that way. They insist that the theological tactic of biblical literalism should be applied to the Book of Genesis and its creation narrative. Supposedly this represents the absolute and only path to truth. That approach typically aligns with the claim that scripture is infallible and inerrant in every respect and never changing. Combined, these are the foundations of religious legalism, defined as “excessive adherence to law or formula.”5
@@ChristopherCudworth Agreed. Yet, oddly, even the most conservative scholars will accept a story from Jesus which is entirely fictional, and yet is full of truth in its meanings - I use the plural deliberately. We might keep finding new things every time we look at the parable of the Prodigal Son, but nobody's faith (that I'm aware of) has hinged on finding archaeological evidence of the farm. Could closeness to Jesus be a factor in why it's easier to accept some things from him while finding it hard to accept that there could also be metaphor and myth in the rest of the Bible?
All this is TOTALLY different from gays and gay marriage today. Many gays today do NOT practice anal sex. They are called sides. After Paul had listed many sins in Romans 1, he says if you have committed any one of these sins then the whole point of his argument was was Rom 2:1 "You therefore have no excuse you who pass judgement on someone else...." I was a Baptist Pastor and overseas missionary and I am gay, medically proven during electronic shock therapy organized by a Dr who was President of the Baptist Church at that time. Happy to explain. I am not sexually active but I was told I was not welcome to even attend a Baptist Church, just because I am gay (and a side). I have now left the church. God creates some people gay and it is perfectly normal. God has also created some of over 1500 animal species gay. Did God make a HUGE mistake? Of course not.
Hi Ron - thanks for adding your experiences here, and for pointing out that what is listed understood by some as sin from their reading of the Bible may be very different from what was described in the Bible and from what they might be condemning today. It's awful to hear about what happened to you with that church. Hoping and praying for you to thrive in your connection with God and believers who can recognise and affirm what God has really been doing in your life. Keep in touch!
In Romans 1, God Himself declares his feelings on homosexuality. He loves ALL humans, including gay people, but condemns the gay lifestyle. If God turns anyone over to a reprobate mind (depraved mind ), they had better listen attentively because that is the last step before hell. ANYONE can be forgiven if they ask & trust the Lord. But, if they prefer their own filth to God's instructions.. uh-oh. John.
John, I think you might have missed the point Paul is making about condemnation - keep reading Romans, at least as far as chapter 2! What do you think of it?
@@davidlafleche1142 Marriage wasnt created by god, its man made and practical as a social model. There are societies where the complete tribe is father and mother of a child , so if a father dies there are many others to care the kid.
@@Pro-j4q God did indeed create marriage. "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:18, KJV). "The complete tribe" only works when the entire tribe is in agreement. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3, KJV). No doubt, you got that idea from Hillary Clinton, who claimed, "It takes a village to raise a child." The problem is, the global "village" is full of evil people who want to corrupt the child. In Daniel 3, the entire "village" was ready to bow to King Nebuchadnezzar's golden idol; but three Jewish children refused to violate the 2nd Commandment. They were thrown in a furnace. Fortunately, God allowed them to survive; but that doesn't always happen. During the Crusades and the Inquisition, Roman Catholic terrorists were murdering Christians and Jews who refused to go along with their "village." Socialists such as Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot brutally murdered millions of people who refused to conform with their "village." The 5th Commandment says, "Honour thy father and thy mother," not the evil "village."
For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others-and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Does your God love everyone? John 3:16-17. Yes, he does. He's Gay.
The bible is a man made book with man made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man made errors : + light wasn't there before the sun + the earth wasn't there before the sun + Adam and Eve didn't exist + insects have six legs not four legs + the value of Pi isn't 3 + homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary sense + the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world + the moon doesn't produce visible light + etc etc If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't. As easy as that.
listening to your definition and interpretation of Scripture is definitely not what Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. You quote extrabiblical sources and forces it into Scripture to fit your doctrine. Jehovah (Exodus 6:3 KJV) instituted marriage between one man and one woman till death do them part (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9; etc. KJV). You must understand that even the Jews (Israel) transgressed their LAW and continually gone a whoring after the gods of Babylon Egypt etc. and do the same abominable acts as they did. This is the reason GOD destroyed the world with the deluge because of the abominations for homosexuality, lesbianism, paedophilia, spectrophilia, bestiality, fornication, adultery, idolatry, etc. was abounding (Genesis 6-9 KJV). As for Sodom and Gomorrah was another example of the wrath of on homosexuals who even went as far as to want to rape the men which was angels who lodged in Lot’s house… (Genesis 18-19 KJV). In Scripture it is not just the obvious that is an abomination in the sight of GOD as the lgbtq2z narrative but also fornication and adultery is sin which will lead the practitioner to hell. Note the warning of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 King James Version 9 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 abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. You cannot claim :11 if you are still practicing or in agreement or be entertained by those who practice :9-10. The warning in Romans 1-2 KJV for GOD will hand you over to a reprobate mind… Heed the warning to the church in Revelation 2-3; 20:10-15; 21:7-8; etc. KJV. Since the ascension of the LORD Jesus Christ grievous wolfs entered into the ecclesia not sparing the flock but devour them with traditions and doctrines of man and devils. Look what the lgbtq2z did they perverted the rainbow and used it to their own destruction for this world is set for the destruction by fire... (2 Peter 3:7-13; Revelation 19:11-21:5 KJV) … Thus, if you are practicing any of these abominable acts or are entertained by it or are in agreement with those who do it you are in agreement with their folly and will be under the same condemnation according to the Scriptures. You cannot reason it away or change the Scriptures to suit your doctrine for the Word of GOD is set forever in Heaven and man cannot change it. Man tried it for millennia now and did not succeed; we see today more than 38.000 non and denominational religious institutional organisations who congregates in one or more of the 46+ million theatres aka ‘churches’ reading from one or more of the 900+modern bibles which is not the word of GOD but perversions and is constantly revised to conform to the apostate church! GOD is not the GOD of confusion and His word is not of private interpretation… Paul was not confused in what he wrote in Romans 1:24-32 King James Version 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Paul was referring to gays and lesbians but even more than that… You need to repent of your twisting of the Scriptures to force them into your doctrine for you will stand before the Holy and Righteous LORD and Savior Jesus Christ who will be the JUDGE of the world giving account and since you call yourself a teacher know this your judgment will trickster James 3:1 King James Version 1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. Matthew 12:31-37 King James Version 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
@@wesleygordon1645 that is your opinion of facts.. Let me have mine. So I guess next when false apostle paul states we should eat all types of unhealthy foods he didn't really mean food. Lol
I like how you discuss abusive sexuality in ancient Rome and how sexual relationships were intrinsically unequal. There's even a remark in Martial 6:39 that reads, _"percide si vis, filium tuum, nefas non est"_ ("F*** your son, if you wish, it's not wrong."), see p.40 note 47 of John Boswell's Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Really bad. And "inventors of evil"? Well we know about Priapus but did you know he's intimately connected with crucifixion? In Virgil's Catalepton 2a.18, we read: _"parata namque crux, cave, stat mentula"_ ("For the cross is made ready, beware! The penis is erect!"), also The Priapeia 83 or 87. Picture Priapus standing erect in more ways than one with his arms extended straight out, with a male member 12 to 18 inches in length. That statue is definitely a cross that is completely different from the warp and woof that hangs in our churches! Scary if you're caught by the farmer and he demands that you mount him. And I read somewhere that Priapus was also a guide in the underworld, so he is also connected with death. Ruh-roh. It means the standard Roman execution cross, or torture-stake, was modeled after Priapus. Do we have evidence of this? Yes indeed. Literary, historical, and archeological. Seneca Minor describes it in mocking Maceneas' prayer that he'd rather do anything to avoid suicide, even mounting a cross! Here it is: "I should deem him most despicable had he wished to live up to the time of crucifixion! 'Nay', he cries... 'You may nail me up and set for my seat the piercing cross!' Is it worth while to weigh down upon one's own wound, and hang impaled upon a gibbet, that one may postpone something that is the balm of troubles, the end of punishment?", Moral Epistles 101.10-14. The Latin for "to weigh down upon" is _"premere",_ meaning "to press". So here we have the imagery of a man compelled to pierce himself when his leg muscles tire and cramp, forcing him to slump into the down position, for the piercing cross was a somewhat vertical spike atop a horizontal strut that projected outwards (Pozzuoli Graffito, Vivat Crux Graffito). Now was Jesus historically crucified in this manner? The Roman laws protecting Jews forbade it, but both Philo and Josephus say Pilate disrespected Jewish Law, and a few church fathers claim he was. You've got to do a video on this! Additional sources: Bloodstone Gem at the British Museum Lucian, In the Court of the Vowels Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 40.1-3 and 91.1-2 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.24.4 Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1.12.3-4, An Answer to the Jews 10.7-8, and Against Marcion 3.18.3-4.
Christianity , as any other religion, is a subjective interpretation of a possible objective god/gods, with man made subjective moralities and rules out of their historic context.
@@anamericanfriend2367 I know that there are lots of things that come to mind for me with that term, but I was wondering what came to mind for you. I'd be happy to go first if you insist, but I'm really interested in what you think more than what I already know I think!
You are missing a major part of the explanation for why homosexual behavior is sinful, one that was probably available to Paul: Greeks described such behavior as hubris, pride in dominating another that is also behind the expression of abnormal sex. From Wiki: 'In ancient Greek, hubris referred to “outrage”: actions that violated natural order, or which shamed and humiliated the victim, sometimes for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser. In some contexts, the term had a sexual connotation. Shame was frequently reflected upon the perpetrator, as well ... ' As we know, Roman justice was very much derived from Greek justice. It was not just aggressive homosexual behavior that was shamed: 'In legal terms, hubristic violations of the law included what might today be termed assault-and-battery, sexual crimes, or the theft of public or sacred property ... another example of hubris appears in Aeschines' "Against Timarchus," where the defendant, Timarchus, is accused of breaking the law of hubris by submitting himself to prostitution and anal intercourse. Aeschines brought this suit against Timarchus to bar him from the rights of political office and his case succeeded. 'In ancient Athens, hubris was defined as the use of violence to shame the victim (this sense of hubris could also characterize rape). Aristotle defined hubris as shaming the victim, not because of anything that happened to the committer or might happen to the committer, but merely for that committer's own gratification: '...Hubris is not the requital of past injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: naive men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater ... 'Crucial to this definition are the ancient Greek concepts of honour (τιμή, timē) and shame (αἰδώς, aidōs). The concept of honour included not only the exaltation of the one receiving honour, but also the shaming of the one overcome by the act of hubris. This concept of honour is akin to a zero-sum game.' Perhaps a more insightful version of homosexuality today would include the understanding that ALL deviant sexual behavior is the product, not of lust, but of revenge which is felt as a sense of justice needing to be satisfied in order to right past wrongs.
Hi Don - thank you for your view thoughtfully. You raise an interesting point about people's motivations for sexual behaviour, and in cases where people are having sex for revenge or simply to gain self-satisfaction, there's an abundance of guidance in scripture to say this isn't good. It's not loving, is it? So that would be hard to defend. But are you correct in assuming that all "deviant sexual behaviour" is like this? You haven't defined this precisely, but it seems like quite a broad assumption. Indeed, if you were to meet a same sex couple that appeared to love each other genuinely, rather than be driven by the motives you have assumed, would this change your view, or have you ruled out this possibility?
Thank you for your excellent explanation of old dispensation verbiage. As for today 2. Loving kind and caring respectful men who are committed to a compassionate consenting intimate union is OK with God God says in his word How Lovely it is when brothers Love each other ✝️🌈✝️🏳️🌈✝️⭐️✝️💜✝️👍✝️♥️
I think that it is difficult to see Romans 1 in the way in which you describe it. I'm not sure if there are early Christian teachers who commented on Paul's letter to the Romans, but it would be helpful to hear their interpretations of this chapter. I, for one, am a "red-letter" Christian, so I consider Paul's teaching to be nothing more than opinion and feel that his opinion of homosexuality is simply wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong today.
Hi Dave - that's an interesting view, thanks! The formation of a New Testament canon is a topic you might like to explore, by the sounds of it, and much is written about how and why certain texts were included and many others were not. As far as I understand, this became an issue because of disagreements over ideas in circulation and was settled mostly on the basis of how close the writers were believed to have been to Jesus. Paul gets in because of what happened to him, as Luke wrote in Acts, receiving a change of heart and a God-given spiritual leadership role, which would then have been tested in the practice of church planting. I'm wondering what you think of Acts in general, then, as there's not much to put in "red letters" straight from Jesus, but it's essential for any of us who aren't Jewish - otherwise, we'd never be accepted as Spirit-filled by Messianic Jews! I believe that the early Christians found Acts and the letters extremely useful, but I'm also struck by how radically the Spirit was changing believers' minds about things they had thought were permanently settled. What do you think?
@@BernLeckie Thanks for the reply. I don't completely disregard all that is in the books outside the gospels but I only consider them to have authority if they are in line with Jesus teaching and ministry. You might say I would treat them as many protestants treat the books in the Catholic Bible that are missing from most protestant Bibles.
I grew up in a church that studied the Bible constantly. Even then I was not convinced that writings of Paul should have been included. It all seemed very different from what Jesus taught.
Very much appreciate your going through these passages. Your research into Roman sexuality - and abusive sexual practices - is a much-needed, hugely important element in the context of this discussion.
" For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth , and shall be turned unto fables " ( 2 Timothy, Chapter 4 , v.3 and 4 ) . Roman's Ch.1 speaks for itself . Believe it , or not . Up to each one of us , as all will be answerable to Christ . On that Day there will be clarity , and He will have no arguments.
Agreed. I think, whenever anything is unclear, just go back to Genesis... It is an awesome book and one which the Devil has been seeking to destroy and corrupt for centuries! Just read and look and observe... Don't think and interpret. Just read it as it stands!!! How did God create Humankind (ONE man and ONE Women) and what where his instructions to them. It's really that simple! Don't try and subtract or add to it.... Just read it and let it form pictures in your mind about what it says!!! It is pure, it is straight, it is simple, it is truth! Genesis is where we get to learn a lot about the Heart of God and his will for us! WE SHALL NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT!!!!!!
@@schlix101 Yes, Adam and Eve bought the lie of the Devil, when he told them they could know good and evil. That is, they would be able to determine for themselves what was right and wrong, making themselves idolaters, being their own god. And now we have these ridiculous and wicked arguments over what is clearly stated all through the Old and New Testaments, and even in nature itself. God is furious with most all of us, you better believe it. Seek the Savior evermore, before that great day, lest we die in our sins, and face judgment after death.
Hi Eric! Romans 1 speaks for itself up to a point - then along comes Romans 2! I love how scripture can take us on a journey from where we are to where God wants us to be, and I think Paul invites us on a journey like that in Romans. We'll probably find ourselves recognising our desire to condemn people who seem evil to us at the start, but by the end we can know what it means to have transformations in our minds so we can be increasingly like Christ. There'll be signs for us to recognise when this is happening, and we might end up changing our minds about some things we thought we knew. What do you think?
@@BernLeckie I think God is the same yesterday, today , and forever . I know he created a woman from and for a man , and that they were to become one flesh inside marriage for the pro creation of children . Sex is meant to be between a man and a woman , within marriage . One of the issues God had with Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality . You are in error , in my opinion. I have my own struggles and issues with God , but I know Christ's blood cleanses me from all my sins , as lo g as I acknowledge these first , and ask for His help . I recommend John , Ch.6 , v.37 , which is a promise from Jesus Christ to anyone who comes to Him for rescue . That's where I started on my path to salvation, without knowing much doctrine . I took Christ at His word , and He took me in ... best wishes .
@@eric2685 Thanks Eric - I love your thoughtfulness and what you've shared about your own journey here. I'm not sure where you think I'm in error, but I don't want to argue! I think I'm seeing from many people's comments here that there's an expectation that where we might differ on one issue (e.g. defining what food is acceptable, as Paul addresses in Romans, or what love is acceptable, as Christians debate today), we might differ on ALL issues, and this is where accusations and condemnations start flying. I absolutely agree with you about Jesus being the source of rescue which I need, like all of us. It sounds like our experiences might differ about how he has shaped our minds so far, but I hope you'd also agree that we are works in progress, with new things still to learn. Best wishes to you too!
Thank you for this video. I think the great error in the ages about homosexuality is that it has been associated with sexual excess solely. Sexual orientation and the reality of it has never been discussed or mentioned. Deeply loving and monogamous long term relationships happen between two people of the same the sex all over the world all the time. These individuals are not attracted at all to the opposite sex. They are gay by birth. And yet, because of a warped interpretation of scripture, natural sexual orientation towards the same sex is seen as sexual depravity. As the video discusses, many heterosexual men (it happened in greco roman times and it still happens today) might have sex with another man who is sexually passive (or not sexually passive) for different reasons and that doesn't compromise his masculinity, but you see this case of homosexuality is different from someone who is truly gay. The case of the heterosexual man having sex with men is a case of sexual excess, in my eyes. Sexual excess can distract a person from their spiritual life whether they are gay or straight. Being gay is not a case of sexual excess. Sure, heterosexuals and gays all have the same human tendency to fall into lust but just having a sexual orientation by birth towards the same sex does not make a person sexually depraved . That is what needs to be understood by all Christians and the world at large!
So thankful that after getting it wrong for over 2000 years, Owen Lynch has finally understood the true meaning of scripture. /s
People of depraved mind will use the Scriptures to disobey God and continue in their lusts.
Well said. Clearly the speaker has wisdom hitherto undiscovered, even by the founders of Christ's own Church.
Did the Jews also got it wrong for 3500 years, that is, since Mose got the commands.
@@johnwallace7629 God says eating from the Tree of knowledge is death. Do you believe him?
Christians in many parts of the world have decided many times over those 2,000 years that they've got something wrong.
"Did God really say?" Hmmm, why does that question sound kind of familiar?
Yeah what God really said was eating from the Tree of knowledge was death. Do you believe him? You got applesauce on your chin there
Yes. Paul meant that.
Here's a reminder of what Satan said to Eve a long, long time ago, "Did God REALLY say that?" Satan still speaks the same today. Are you going to listen and then be deceived by him? Or. are you going to resist him?
Really good point about not wanting to be deceived by Satan! Do you find that asking "Did God really say that?" is a question you believe you must not ask when you read the Bible or hear a talk, though?
davey - plus one to what Bern said. What I will resist is being told how to read the bible by people who have no idea of scriptural, cultural or linguistic context.
@@tezzerii many who post something on UA-cam, are unqualified to speak on this subject matter. Yet, everyone tries passing themselves off as "experts"
Paul =/= God.
@@kathyern861 very true. I've also watched videos by "experts", "proving" that the earth is flat =oO
I think, whenever anything is unclear, just go back to Genesis... It is an awesome book and one which the Devil has been seeking to destroy and corrupt for centuries! Just read and look and observe... Don't think and interpret. Just read it as it stands!!! How did God create Humankind (ONE man and ONE Women) and what where his instructions to them. It's really that simple! Don't try and subtract or add to it.... Just read it and let it form pictures in your mind about what it says!!! It is pure, it is straight, it is simple, it is truth! Genesis is where we get to learn a lot about the Heart of God and what He intends for our lives and how we can orientate ourselves to resonate with our beginnings! There is NO NEED for us to deduct for our own understanding, for Genesis simply says what it says and THAT IS THAT!!!!!! - If you don't get it, then it can only be because you are in disagreement and you don't want to get it... Which means perhaps you should look at yourself a bit more you imperfect human being.... which is what we all are, isn't it??? Genesis speaks to our inner being, more than any other book!!! And once we accept it's truth we realize that we are fallen, in need of a savior!
Thanks for your comment! It sounds we would all like people to read the Bible and receive what it means more faithfully, but the "don't think" approach that you describe might be a reason why people end up misunderstanding and disagreeing. Whether or not we want to, and without actively trying, we all interpret what we read through our current understandings, which differ from person to person. However, as Jesus calls us to "metanoia" (Mark 1:14-15), a changing of our minds to receive his mind, and Paul writes "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2), we find that following Jesus results in our minds being changed - and that can include growing in our understanding of what the Bible means. Have you ever had this experience?
I like HOW you read the Bible. I can hear how much it means to you, in your heart, not just in your head. Thanks for your perspective. It really helps me with my fears/triggers with reading Romans. (church abuse was bad for me)
I hope the best for you but his interpretation although interesting and may have some historical facts that is not what Paul was talking about he was talking about Genesis for a lot better understanding check out Dr. Michael Heizer the unseen realm you will enjoy and your Bible we’ll make more sense good luck God blessI hope that helps
or Pastor Mike Winger , he is really an awesome preacher
You are reading something into text that is not Bible we to God word as it reads
All of this will not help you are reading into the text to gratified your way of thinking does who were not found written in the book to life will pay the price for our behaviour. God help us
Pretty disgusting situation in Rome back in Paul's day but he was not afraid to call it out. To him, it was a matter of life and death, and he was offering life through Christ to cultures that were headed for hell in a handbasket! A wake-up call to every person, every culture, worldwide. Some will laugh haughtily, but God will have the last word.
Amazing the lengths we go to to make something say what we want it to say instead of what it plainly says.
It plainly says that male idolaters did "unseemly" things with each other. So what?
@@MusicalRaichu So it is an abominable sin, and God hates it, it is no small matter. Watch for fire!
@@gordoncrawley5826 It's not a joking matter.
@@MusicalRaichu That is exactly right! God sent fire from the sky before as it says in the Book of Jude. Biblical history is a warning for us, that is one reason God wrote it down for us. Like I said in another post, we are trying to save people from the wrath of God that will surely come after death. But this is mistakenly seen as being hateful, when in fact it is love for people, to warn them and to turn them to Christ for salvation. A mother scolding her child for playing in the street is love, not hate, it is caring. I do not delight what so ever in knowing that people are headed for eternal torment for sins committed in life, especially when God offers us the grace of salvation. But no one is right with God if they are in disagreement with Him, over His laws.
What does it plainly say? And does it carry on meaning what you think it meant by the time you've finished reading Romans?
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 abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
'Abusers of themselves with mankind' does not necessarily equal any and all male-male sexual activity.
@@davidparry5310 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:27
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination Leviticus 20:13
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18
@@stephenpeppin5537 'And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly'
Again, it's by no means a given that this is necessarily a condemnation of male-male activity per se. As for the part about women 'exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones', this is either not a reference to female-female sexual activity or is an interpolation, as virtually no one in ancient Rome during the era of the Principate had any concept of such things even occurring.
As for the Leviticus verse, I find it amusing how people like you almost invariably omit the part about execution, and when pressed on it, come out with some BS rationalisation about how the execution part is no longer applicable, but the rest of the injunction is still applicable because ... reasons.
@@davidparry5310 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:18
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
MIND-BLOWING video. Thank you.
Yep...all the way to hell.
fall of Rome and the fall of modern America and England, ANYTHING GOES.
Well on its way there!!
Hi Susan - thanks for commenting. When you write "anything goes", is this your reflection on today's society, or your impression of what is being suggested by the video? Maybe both? There's a content warning at the start of the video because some of what's described - particularly towards the end, is abusive and would likely be condemned by many people today even though it was common in Paul's culture. We agree with Paul (and Jesus) in not accepting an "anything goes" attitude to life! For anyone who hasn't yet seen the video (thinking of people reading the comments first, rather than you, Susan!) it would be good to make sure to watch to the end, even though some of what is described is difficult to take in. And in that context, Paul's challenge to believers in Romans 2 is massive - what do you think about that?
Romans 2 tells us not to judge and that we will be condemned for doing so which is the point of Romans 1. But Conservative Christians don't read that Chapter. They are focused on being the sin police for what they believe is sinful and no humility whatsoever that they could possibly be wrong.
"And likewise also the men....burned in their lust for one another.... This doesn't sound like a display of power, nor even necessarily an act of pederasty. Rather, it sounds to me like consensual sex between men who are drawn to "one another."
Exactly! And I would add Paul's admonition to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:3 - "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
Rom 1.27 is neither about pedarasty nor homoxesuality. The word used by Paul is not "Iust", it's "appetite", a different connotation. He spoke of male idolaters who "set aside the natural use of the female", men naturally attracted to women but had secs with men anyway for some other reason, namely idolatry. Someone gay has never been attracted to women so has not done that. The text fails to describe gay people.
You might be right - but keep reading the rest of Romans! "Desires of the flesh" are definitely addressed - it's not an invitation to believe that all behaviour is acceptable - but it's also a challenge to any of us who thought we understood the law or believed that we could condemn anyone else by quoting it. I'd love to know what you think of the rest of the journey Paul takes readers on in this letter.
Exactly!!
People seem to leave no stone unturned in order to justify their own personal perversion.
It's not a matter of "justification," or not...one is what one is, and sexual orientation is not a choice.
@@Pootycat8359 - Bullshit! It absolutely is a choice.
@@billpowell9527 Sounds like you're struggling with your own sexuality, else you wouldn't be so adamantly absolutist. I've always found the "therefore" intriguing that begins Romans 2:1, showing it shouldn't be a second chapter:
"Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." Looks like you got caught in the sting operation, too.
@@billpowell9527 It's a 100% certainty that it's not a choice. A bisexual person can choose, but a homosexual cannot. Believing it's a choice is like believing the sky is green. Read any psychology text or ask any homosexual, or ask anyone who is paraphilac in other ways...or ask yourself! Did YOU choose your sexual orientation?
You might argue that one can choose one's lifestyle - embrace your sexuality ; pretend you're not what you are ; or just be alone and celibate. Not much of a choice, is it, really? But to say that one's sexuality is a choice is just ignorant, and judgmental.
As an apostle he was sticking with the written word of God
There was no such thing as "written word of God" other than the Torah when Paul was an apostle. He was one of those people who were writing "the written word of God," which is the New Testament.
@@nedthumberland if the tora isnt the word of god then why is it important
@@shaneharrison4775
Do you have difficulty reading English?
I said, "There was no such thing as 'written word of God' other than the Torah when Paul was an apostle."
Whether he was sticking with the teachings of the Torah is up for debate.
@@nedthumberland No i dont have any difficulty at all. Being as any utterance can be equated and understood and writen. It is your unbelief that incumbers your understanding the writen version of Gods breathed word. There for the problem lays with you sir not I.
@@shaneharrison4775 Being a believer isn't a prerequisite for understanding scripture. To assert that certain teachings can only be understood by the initiated is not only false, but it reeks of Gnosticism.
Thank you for taking historical context and the original audience seriously. However you left out, I hope not purposefully, an important detail in the text itself that doesn't depend on the historical context, rather on the human heart. In verse 24 the issue is identified, the lusts/sinful desires of their hearts. Verse 27 also, which says they were consumed with passion for one another. No doubt the Greco Roman attitude of power and standing is important, but here the issue is 'passion for one another'. Both are active pursuing it 'for one another'. Jesus warns that adultery in the law is about lust of the heart not just acts. People are the same now as then, human nature has not changed. Lust is rampant now as it was then, this talk makes it seem like back then people were primarily almost exclusively interested in power and religious practices in regard to sex, rather than individual pleasure and where the text identifies it - as lust of the human heart.
Hi John - thank you for watching and for your thoughtful response. You're right to point out that "lust of the heart" is a timeless issue that Jesus addresses, as well as many other writers in the Bible! As we look to interpret scripture faithfully, we include that. However, this talk is addressing the meaning and context of a part of Romans 1 which is often misinterpreted for other reasons the speaker focused on, including our lack of understanding of some aspects of the local culture, as well as Paul's intention in his writing structure which becomes clearer when we start to read Romans 2, which starts: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (Romans 2:1) In that context, doesn't it seem ironic when people use any part of Romans 1 to condemn others, especially parts we may not have correctly understood?
@@severnvineyard thanks for your reply, you are correct it's not just ironic but it's sinful that Christians would condemn others for their sin. The whole point is that the law of God is what condemns us and that we are all guilty, the result is that our mouths should all be shut when it comes to condemning anyone else. Regarding sexuality it's clear to me what it's saying in Romans the cause is passion and lust not forced/ passive sex, however God condemns all sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman committed for life - Jesus said it to clearly in Matthew God made male and female from the beginning of creation, therefore one man one woman marriage is his design and command, and what he has joined together, one man and one woman, let not man separate. It's wrong that homosexuality has been somehow been made out to be worse sexual sin than others. Nonetheless it is still a sin like all others that are deserving of death and God's holy judgment and are to be repented of. The good news is that God took that judgment upon himself at the cross For anyone who confesses their sins and receives the forgiveness by faith evidenced by repentance. Thanks for reading!
@@johnsteindel5273 'Jesus said it to clearly in Matthew God made male and female from the beginning of creation. '
It's just extrapolation to say that therefore, heterosexual marriage is God's design and same-sex marriage and homosexual activity are contrary to said design. It's a leap of logic.
It wasn’t just Paul’s writings and let us not forget about sodom and Gomorrah!
Leviticus 18:22 - Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Romans 1:24-27 - Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I Corinthians 6:9 - Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men.
1 Timothy 1:10 - For the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers - and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
Plus what Jesus said in Matthew's gospel chapter 18
The bible is only 3000 years old, humans like us (homo sapiens) exist for 300,000 years.
In none of the millions of artefacts, cave paintings, scriptures or any other testimony in the 297,000 years before the bible, a "homosexuality hating, one and only God YHWH” or "Adam and Eve" was ever mentioned.
Any archaeological testimony of that version of a god is out of the short "biblical time" when people already invented that story and believed in it.
This version of a "homosexuality hating, one and only God YHWH" is an invention only 4000-3000 years old.
The argument present is that the condemnation of homosexual practices only pertains to the specific subcategory of people from Romans 1:22 onward and that everything listed after 22 pertains to just this group. But the sins that pertain to this group are universal, so Paul reminds his followers in Romans 2 not to do them. Fornication is condemned in the Gospels and the letters several times and any sexual act outside of heterosexual marriage would have been considered such. For this reason, Paul does not mention homosexual relations as a legitimate vocation when he talks of marriage or celibacy. And being a former Pharisee, Paul would have condemned homosexuality in and out of his letters.
Hi Steve - interesting comment. Is that what you think is being said in the video, or are you referring to another argument? I'm getting the impression that some viewers have a lot on their minds about these issues before watching, and so a lot comes to mind while watching - both from the talk and elsewhere! It's not surprising, because these are much discussed and sensitive topics. Do you know anyone struggling with them?
@@BernLeckie You seem to be attempting an Ad Hom against my intellectual authority by implying I didn't watch the entire video or address the arguments being made in the video. That simply is not the case. It's also irrelevant, to scripture and tradition, whether I know any individuals struggling with any sin whatsoever. The argument being made here is that the group being referred to in Romans 1:22 are pagan temple sexual abusers and that it is not applicable to the general population. First, I'd like to point out that Romans 1:17 references to Hab 2:4 and one could make a rather obvious argument that everything that follows from Romans 1:17 is referring to historical wickedness that occurred in centuries past in a different location. So, it could be a commentary on the past, Paul's present, and something relevant to us today, and I see no reason why it can't be all three. Even if we say that Pau's intent when writing this letter is primary, we fall into the Intentionality Fallacy. Instead, the interpretation of Paul's words must be analyzed as a whole and cross-referenced with other areas of scripture. Therefore, the notion that Romans 1 only condemns specific immoral practices with this specific subgroup of people in this specific place, which is Rome, falls.
@@steveempire4625 Please forgive me for anything I wrote which you perceived as an attack on you. I'm genuinely curious about how what you wrote related to the video and how your perception might have been shaped through your experience and other things on your mind - maybe I'm more prone than you to processing things together in this way!
My impression of Owen's argument is different from yours - I didn't pick up the suggestion that Paul's description of sin was meant to be limited and not applicable to the general population. I agree with you that this argument would be faulty, because Paul includes everyone in history (past, present and, I expect, future) in his description of people who deserve condemnation in Romans 1. That is his point leading into Romans 2! If Paul's Romans 1 sin list is all-inclusive, it makes no sense to use it as a way to excuse anyone, but Paul also instructs believers not to use it to condemn anyone, lest we condemn ourselves.
So Owen's point about what readers would have understood by what we get from Paul in English as "sexual impurity" and "shameful acts with other men" wasn't to exempt anyone from sin, but to bring to mind the true awfulness of what would have been front of mind for people in the culture of his time - especially the abuse people suffered. Paul was clearly writing about sin.
However, Owen also made the point that Paul was structuring his writing in a particular way - what he termed a "sting operation" - in which the reader or listener may have felt an immediate rush of condemnation for other people before realising that they were being drawn in into make accusations about others which would reflect back on themselves. There is more about this in the next video in the series.
Does that sound like a fair interpretation to you, of the talk and of the passage? Or have I missed something vital?
@@BernLeckie First Paragraph: Surely, my views on this subject are beyond the scope of this video but that is not to say I didn't give it a fair hearing. No harm, no foul.
Second Paragraph: The clear intent of this video is to indicate that wholesome homosexual relationships are not being condemned in Romans 1 by pointing to Roman practices. In other words, Paul is condemning these Roman practices as opposed to modern-day homosexuality. That is completely false and I'm not sure how it is possible for you to have missed this intent.
Third Paragraph: I cast doubt on the notion that Paul was speaking of Roman practices. His general list of vices and his quoting of OT scripture gives me the impression he's speaking of Natual Law. This wasn't a situation where he was shocked and appalled by Roman practices and decided to write about it. When Paul is disgusted by something, he tends to point out the specific community and sin involved.
Fourth Paragraph: There's no evidence at all here to suggest that Paul was condemning Roman/Gentile practices and therefore was setting up Jews for an epic putdown in Romans 2. These sins of Natural Law come from the OT, come from Paul's knowledge of the OT, and he brings up the rebellious history of the Israelites to the Romans. And this same technique of listing a bunch of sins as condemnation is given to Corinth, Galatians, and Colossians. The specific situation in Rome at the time is irrelevant to Romans 1.
@@steveempire4625 Got it, thank you! I agree with you that Paul was not writing specifically about Roman practices. As I believe Owen mentioned, and other commentators certainly do, Paul's approach through Romans 1 would have sounded very familiar to Jewish audiences as the kinds of appeal to Natural Law they were used to. These were frequently made in the context of Jewish leaders reminding people how blessed Israel was in comparison to other nations, at a time when Jewish culture was being threatened by dilution into other cultures, especially Greek-speaking cultures, and invasion from Rome.
As such, Romans 1 would have sounded to a reader or listener like the Paul was getting into a familiar routine, pointing to "them" (non-Jews, people who didn't know or follow God's law) as Israel's biggest problem - count how many times "they" or "them" is used, never "we" or "us."
Nevertheless, we'd be missing Paul's point entirely if we read this passage as if it is a condemnation or "you're fine" for any particular people. Paul turns surprisingly, satirically perhaps, to "they disobey their parents" and a bunch of other things which includes everyone. Not just "them", definitely "us." I think this is meant to feel awkward and uncomfortable to the reader - you may disagree, but if we aren't at all uncomfortable with condemnation of "them" when we should be included, we've definitely missed the point of Romans 2:1 - "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."
That is the "epic putdown" as you beautifully put it - not a setup for the Jews, but using (at the time) familiar Jewish language as a setup for everyone reading - including us! When you read a comment here condemning people for something they've read in Romans 1, you might also hear the snap of the trap Paul put in place. That is NOT to excuse anything on the list as 'not sin', but demonstrate the trap's effectiveness. We all need Jesus to get us out of it, to free us from sin and from the feeling that we need to condemn others if that's what we end up doing.
I think the key to understanding Romans is to walk through it with Paul, and to acknowledge that we did get caught in condemnation as well as sin, then to receive what only Jesus can offer to free us from both. When we do this, and only after we've given ourselves up in worshipful sacrifice as response to God, Paul promises that we can "be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Romans 12:2b)
At this point, I'd like to stop short of attempting to argue or defend what you think Owen meant about homosexuality today. This is partly because it's late (and nearly Christmas!), partly because I respect that your view isn't something I can know or engage with as well as you can (you might like to explain more, but I don't want to prolong an argument!), and partly because I believe - as I think you might too - that God loves to renew our minds and help us see how he is at work in wholesome relationships, and he can illuminate that much better than I can. Hope you have a very happy Christmas, and please keep in touch if you'd like to discuss more.
You can spin it all you want while here on earth, but there is going to be a judgment, based on the Word of God, that means what it says and does not change. Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked: Who can know it?" That is what is going on here, self deception, dreamers trying to make the bible say what they want it to say. Jude 7 is a model of the future when Christ returns. Christ can save you but you must confess the truth, then cleansing will come. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Be fearful, and call out for salvation.
Hi Gordon - have you watched the video to the end? Or read Romans to the end recently? I don't think the speaker here is denying that there is wickedness in society - that's why there is a content warning at the start! Paul's challenge to us in Romans is partly to make us accept that we have all done things which are subject to judgement, and therefore should not judge each other (Romans 2).
But while God's view of evil doesn't change, our view might need to because picking up the law and trying to make sense of it with our own minds is insufficient and did not lead to salvation. We can follow this in Romans. No-one gets righteous through works of the law, although it can make us aware of sin (Romans 3). We only enter a state of right relationship with God though faith (Romans 3-4), which isn't so much a belief we hold in our heads but Jesus' faithfulness to us and our faithful response to him (Romans 5). This can put us on the way of life with Christ, avoiding sin, death and condemnation from the law (Romans 6-7).
It is therefore vital for us to be filled with and transformed by the Spirit (Romans 8), and only with this mindset can we accept that salvation is a work of God's mercy rather than something we can earn (Romans 9). If there's anything we need to do, it's summed up in Romans 10 - "if you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." God will work out how to save all of his people, including Israel (Romans 11).
Looking at what we're called to do in worshipful response (Romans 12), we should expect God to change our minds. Only then will we truly know his will. Does that suggest to you that we have already mastered God's definitions of love, evil, and what God wants to do through us in the world to bring about his kingdom? It strongly suggests to me that we have not. Paul prescribes love and humility for us. This is not surrender to evil, but surrender of how we thought we would tackle evil before our minds were changed by Christ. It's not about us gratifying "the needs of the flesh" (Romans 13) but accommodating people with different faith attitudes in a loving way (Romans 14).
"So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another." (Romans 14:12-13)
Do we do that? No! Even Christians didn't in Paul's time either - see Romans 15. But we should - that's the point. And we can't live better purely by our own efforts but only with mutual support and God working in us (Romans 16).
How does that sound to you? Can we suspend our judgement and let God do what he wants in and through us? Could he even have glorious surprises for us when we recognise him working in ways we could never have expected from our human understanding of the law?
@@BernLeckie Bern, I know where you are coming from, and I can agree with much of what you are saying. I certainly do understand God's grace unto salvation. God is love, that is His greatest attribute, but how do we define and exercise, "love"? God in His love, gave the human race commandments to live by, commandments that were for our good, not ones that are merely there to spoil our happiness. Mankind was created for God. The first and greatest command is to love God with all our being. That admittedly is humanly impossible, because of the sin condition we are born into the world with. However, as Christians, our orientation in life should be to live up to that. If God, having become our new father in the Spirit, tells us that sinful actions are not pleasing to Him, in love for Him, we look to bow to His commands.
Now what this whole thing is coming down to is the definition of God's law. Not to minimize any sin, there are some things the Church, that Jesus died for, historically, has said, that they could not tolerate, in or out of the Church. Sins that lead to death and separation from God forever. However, in the mainstream of Christendom today, many of those that call themselves part of Christ, have caved into the culture's demands, and violated God's law, sometimes with the idea that it is "love" for people to do so. But the true Church, that God knows as His, is still striving to live for Him, in love for Him.
Jesus said, "if you love me, keep my commandments". But now again, we have to define what the commandments are. People say that Jesus never addressed homosexuality, but unless someone is trying to modify definitions, it is plain throughout scripture, that this is not a part of God's order and plan for humanity. The arguments in favor of this behavior are very compelling, and we as Christians are not trying to be hateful toward people with this orientation. However, I believe, that true Christians, cannot be persuaded to cave into the new definitions of how to see God's law. God knows that His Church, would always be in conflict with the culture of the world, so here we are! What people outside the Church do, is one thing, but what the Church stands for is another. If we do not draw the line on things, then we are not the Church, the light of the world, simple as that, so we certainly must make judgments on matters. Jesus calls to all people to repent and believe in him, for the forgiveness of sins and to be sanctified, forsaking our sins, for his sake and for ours too. Without Christ's power, this is impossible, but he is able to save.
My heart goes out for people with this orientation, for I can well imagine their inner struggle, but as for being in Christ, I cannot say something different. But that does not mean that I hate people over it, no I empathize. All I can say is that, for the Church, this is the way it always has been and always will be. We cannot be right with God if we are in disagreement with His laws and precepts, for this is how it all started in Genesis 3.
In Christ, and in love for him, here I stand, and only by his power. The power that changed me radically, and is still changing me. Glory to God, for his dying for me, that I might die to myself and my sins, and live for Him, as I face my challenges in the flesh too.
@@gordoncrawley5826 Thank you again for your thoughtful reply. I think we agree on quite a bit, so I hope it might be helpful to explore where we might have misunderstandings which perhaps make our views seem more opposed than they are.
I recognise that there's a framework of "conservative" vs. "liberal" or "progressive" which is more commonly referred to in the US than in the UK where Severn Vineyard and I are based. This might be simplifying too much, but my perception is that, when people adopt this framework to explain current tensions in culture and society, people's understanding can quickly polarise to an extreme view on one side or the other, and people can find lots of reasons to mistrust the actions and motivations of those on the other side.
Why do I think this is relevant here? Your view that "many of those that call themselves part of Christ have caved into culture's demands" is one I've often heard from people I would consider more conservative than myself. I can see why people think this - if it seems that someone is proposing a departure from the law, this must seem disrespectful to God, and it must seem quite possible that supporters of what would lead to a change are either being led by culture, perhaps desperate to chase an audience, or simply depraved and devoid of any commitment to avoid sin. One commenter on this page wrote "ANYTHING GOES" as their reflection of what they either thought was being promoted or what was happening in society.
I get that conservatives therefore doubt the motivation and integrity of progressives. It would be fair for you to perceive my views as progressive, but I wonder if I can explain my motivation a little.
I absolutely agree with you on the necessity of dealing with sin. I believe that because I believe in Jesus, and I want to follow him faithfully. I also believe that Jesus consistently pushed for progress in society - not according to a human design, but according to God's kingdom design. God is far more concerned than we tend to be about sin because he loves us. He doesn't want us to cause or prolong suffering and injustice.
This is why I am absolutely not a supporter of "ANYTHING GOES". Nor is any other believer I know, conservative or progressive. If we've taken in just a fraction of Jesus' teaching, heart, mind or Spirit, we are going to look at the world and think "life must be better than this." I think we'd agree that this is what God wants, and that Jesus leads believers into dealing with this.
Perhaps we are only disagreeing about how. I might be wrong about this, but my view of conservatives is that they have a tendency to point to the law and traditions as sources in a way which might be less than helpful. I see Jesus challenging the conservative Pharisees of his time and wonder why conservatively minded followers of Jesus today would want to repeat any of the Pharisees' mistakes. They loved God so much, but overemphasised the role of the law in regulating their behaviour. This led to more injustices and suffering than God wanted. Prophets had previously warned Israel about this and, in New Testament times, the Spirit led Peter, Paul and others through a massive reconsideration of the role of the law. It seemed that God's aim was not to scrap all sense of right and wrong (as conservatives today seem to accuse liberals of wanting), but to replace the mechanisms by which God's will could be done.
Believers could, for the first time, have the Spirit living in their hearts and minds, and find God's true law written there as a result. To make this happen, believers' hearts and minds would have to change. This is what Jesus first called followers to do - translated into Greek for the gospels as "metanoia", we read the word "repent" in English Bibles, but I think that over time we might have limited our understanding of this too much to mean "say sorry and change behaviour" rather than embrace its original meaning of "change your mind."
What I find Paul doing in his letter to the Romans is walking believers through the process of how and why God wants to do this with us. Our attempts to adhere to the law by human effort failed. The law could not save us. That does not mean that we liberalise everything instead, but that we follow Jesus and let him truly change our minds. This, in my view, means that we can also end up inspired by God to view the law in a different way. We might also be led, by God and not by society, to change some details of our interpretation of law if this results in what God wants, to reduce injustice and suffering as his kingdom comes and his will is done. This requires careful testing, and the New Testament shows us that it's likely to be controversial (look at the arguments people had over whether or not Christians should adhere to all aspects of Jewish law), but God's end goal is glorious - not only could we live quite well, as best we could trying to keep to the law, we could start to do the good things that people who heard Jesus said were impossible.
I think I get why anyone would be anxious and sensitive about any attempt to change our minds about what God meant by "sexual immorality", even if the interpretation is led by the Spirit. We've all spent years aware of our own battles, perhaps between desire and health, or between lust and faithfulness in relationships. If we have taken Jesus seriously, we've probably been through a journey from thinking he was demanding too much to, hopefully, enjoying the life he enables when his Spirit produces fruit, including love and self-control, in our lives. I think it's understandable and horribly easy to look at other people with different sexual desires, or with self-giving "agape" love expressed in unexpected ways, and conclude that they need to become more like us if they're going to be saved! It has taken many years and much nudging, by the Spirit, I believe, for me to change my mind about some of this. But it's not unprecedented or unbiblical for people to change their minds - it happens a lot in Acts, it's what the Spirit does!
I don't expect we'll suddenly start agreeing on all of this as a result of a comments thread, but I wonder if you could help me by pointing out where and why you think I might be making a mistake in expecting the Spirit to lead us into a new and more effective understanding of God's heart, mind and word to us?
@@BernLeckie When we see the 10 Commandments, it says, "thou shall not" and leaves no wiggle room, the law is absolute, not fluid. It is not up for discussion because God is a sovereign God, He knows all things, and knows the best order for mankind, that he has made. Sin came into the world, and death because of sin, and it happened when Eve made the mistake of having dialogue with the serpent. He challenged the one law that God gave to Adam and Eve, by phrasing it, "did God really say, you shall not eat of every tree of the garden". The serpent set up the dialogue on his terms, drawing her into the conversation. She responded with what God had said about not eating the fruit or they would die, to which the serpent said flatly, "You will not surely die" then proceeded to show her the benefits of her eating the fruit. A very convincing argument which tempted Eve to take the fruit and eat it. Adam ate too, probably because he saw that Eve did not die, so he ate also. Their eyes were opened, knowing good and evil, but they died spiritually. Knowing good and evil, means they felt they could now make their own decisions and not anymore needed to follow God's absolute rule of law. They could now say to God, yes you said that but, look at it this way, then you will see our point. Every since that day the whole human race has taken on this attitude. People think they are like God and can make their own rules or modify the rules because of some circumstance or situation. But God has the last say, because, He says to mankind, surely you will die and face the judgment.
I know that in Christ our sins are forgiven, but it involves confession and repentance. Confession is the first step toward repentance, repentance meaning a turning from sin. Justification comes first, but sanctification should follow naturally and necessarily. We cannot be sanctified if we do not confess that what we do is indeed sin. If we disagree with God's law, or try to modify it we cannot be right with God. But since the garden and the fall of mankind, it is our human nature to be rebellious against God's law. However, if in Christ, we should look to obey the law, for the law is holy, righteous and good. Being born again, we are a new creation, and the Holy Spirit gives us power over our sins.
I deeply empathize with those who are troubled over sexual sins as it is a powerful force in our lives. But to me, it is very plain that God has given us an order to follow and prohibitions, to maintain sexual purity, in His word. As a Christian I may not always perform the law, but nevertheless, I hold up the standard of God's law, trusting in His judgments as being righteous and true.
@@gordoncrawley5826 Thanks again for your thoughtfulness. I especially love that we share a recognition that God's law is important and that, nevertheless, we don't always perform it. On a public comments thread, we probably won't press each other too much on why, but I can confess that for me, it's a mix of not feeling able to do all the things I think God wants, still wanting to do things God doesn't want, and to some extent trying to justify my personal failures sometimes with the idea that maybe some of it just doesn't count any more because of Jesus because... nebulous reasons. The struggle is real, I admit. But let's not leave it at that, because you raise important points and make some bold statements about the role of the law!
"No wiggle room" - I love this. It's a piercing critique if my attitude is anything like "I understand the law, but I want to get away with as much as I can because I believe in Jesus - what can I get away with?" I would love to say I never feel like this, but I think maybe we both relate to your "wiggle room" term because we do - well, I do, anyway. So what next?
"the law is absolute, not fluid" - this seems like a great remedy to wiggle room. It would counterbalance our wobbliness with certainty, right? "It is not up for discussion" - do you think, though? Have you spent any time with Jewish scholars or read any Rabbinic literature. My goodness - discussion of the law is a massive thing. How, for example, do you read "You shall not do any work" on the Sabbath? There were entire schools of thought devoted to varying interpretations of this, and there still are, with modern Jews ranging from not going into the office to the complete avoidance of touching buttons which would cause work to be done. What's your stance on this? Do you think Jesus clarified the law for us by doing things like taking a walk and cracking open some grain on the Sabbath, which drew criticism from the Pharisees, or did he even nullify this law for his followers? I think these are tough questions for legal scholars, don't you? And that's not even getting into the tricky business of what should happen when the Sabbath is broken, according to the law.
Even if we ignore that and focus purely on the 10 Commandments (not that I can find a reference in the New Testament to say we should do that - have I missed one?), how are we really doing on the others? What about "You shall not make for yourself an image..."? Christians wiggle a lot with this one! We've told ourselves that this is about idol worship, but that's very much an interpretation, and not one shared by every reader. Does it matter that we've created an image-sharing culture that can easily distract and lead us into sin? I'm not being facetious - I'm looking at a bunch of images generated by the UA-cam algorithm on the side of the comments here, and it's distracting! Maybe we'd be better off doing something else. Or maybe we need some guidance on how to interpret all of this properly, personally, spiritually, so that its purpose can be fulfilled in us. Maybe Jesus and the Spirit can do that in us, with more powerful and beneficial results than absolutely regulated, religiously uniform behaviour could ever have.
Here's what I'm thinking about the relationship between Christ and the law. We can do all the legal scholarship and try all the religious devotion in the world and not recognise Christ. But when we do recognise Christ, he can bring the law to life in us, so that its purpose is fulfilled. We have to get this the right way round. We can't understand Jesus as a result of (our best attempts at) submission to the law, but we can understand the law as a result of submission to Jesus.
I think we might agree that it's only through Jesus that can obey the first commandment - "You shall have no other gods". We know, because of Jesus, that this is about more than denying the existence of Zeus, Poseidon, etc. It's about our tendency to put anything else ahead of God, like our desires for self-preservation, money or comfort. We also know, from the gospels, that Jesus' commands on how to live up to this did vary from person to person - or maybe you believe differently? If so, how did selling all your possessions go for you? (Matthew 19:21)
Here's the point I'm trying to make - I'm agreeing with you that wiggling is not a good thing, and that recognising and overcoming sin is vital for us. That includes sexual sin, of course. But when we try and make sense of how to do this by starting with "here's the law", we fail. We have to start with Jesus, then raise our expectations of what God can do in us rather than lower them in a wiggly way. Along the way, looking at scripture and not just at life experience, I believe we have to recognise that Jesus has said different things to different people. We need his Spirit to interpret the law and apply it to us, so that we aren't just appearing to be sinless, but that we genuinely become free from sin.
What does this mean for me? Avoiding sexual immorality doesn't just mean avoiding sex with other men, it means avoiding sex with (and, according to Jesus, desire for) men or women - anyone except my wife! What does avoiding sexual immorality mean for you? If you're married, probably the same, though very importantly based around YOUR spouse rather than mine! And if you're not married, it means something else. As for what it means for someone else who would like to marry, but may be prevented from doing so for various reasons, should we approach this in a "law first" way, or a "Jesus first" way?
Jesus states in Matthew 15:18 "For out of the heart come EVIL thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person." When He states He is the fulfillment of the law, he is talking about the Jewish law as given in the Torah and acknowledged by Moses. A large part of His fulfillment is taking the punishment for the SINS of mankind in disobedience to Gods law. The law in Leviticus clearly delineates what sexual immorality consists of and Jesus died for those sins. Does that therefore make evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness and slander no longer condemned by Gods law. Of course not. Maybe you should read what Leviticus states concerning the essence of sexual immorality, those sins that Jesus took our punishment for and of which we should not partake in as they transgress God's law. Then read Paul in the context of what Jesus did for us on the cross in regard to those sins, rather than interpret Paul with added context that is not in his writing. Godspeed.
Lots of interesting things in your comment here! Have you watched the video to the end? If so, you'll know why there's a warning at the start about content which is difficult to hear, because the speaker describes some truly horrific sexual practices which are abusive and most people today would probably consider evil. So evil and sins, as you point out, are definitely real!
As for what fulfilment of the law means, though, that depends on whether we regard the law in Leviticus as eternally binding on everyone who reads it, or whether it was a milestone on a journey. I'd suggest there's a lot of evidence in scripture that it was more of a milestone than a final destination. For example, Genesis describes a natural human response to pain and aggression as pushing back harder for vengeance's sake. The Jewish law limited that with "an eye for an eye" and an encouragement to delegate vengeance to God rather than keep it for ourselves. There's a direction of travel from Genesis to that law, and I believe Jesus fulfils the purpose of the law by completing the journey with "love your enemies" and "bless those who curse you". That would be impossible under law, but God makes it possible by the work of Christ in us.
Does having the spirit of Christ in us nullify evil by convincing us that nothing is evil any more? Far from it! We can recognise evil and everyone's need - including our own - to be saved from it. I think that Paul's biggest challenge to us at the start of Romans, though, is to force us to reconsider where evil truly is - it can't be defined simply by pointing out people who we feel are not like us. Our tendency to do this is highlighted by the way Paul writes, what Owen referred to as a "sting operation", drawing us into the condemnation of others before we've realised that Paul includes us all in the need for forgiveness and grace, and so, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (Romans 2:1)
Once we accept that the way of Christ is to let him deal with evil in us, and others, without condemnation, this should - I believe - leave us open to God renewing us, perhaps even changing our minds (see Romans 12) about some things we thought we knew. Have you ever had that experience and found God changing your mind about something you previously thought you'd understood about him, his law or his love?
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away by the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.
2 Peter 1:16,17 is an appropriate response to this video.
Or it could be an appropriate response to those who insist against all reason that we should misconstrue "male idolaters did unseemly things" as "lying with the same secs is a sin".
@@MusicalRaichu 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 abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Corinthians 6:9
@@stephenpeppin5537 I don't understand the relevance. What does a text about deliberate hurtful behaviours have to do with culturally inappropriate but consensual acts?
@@MusicalRaichu He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live. Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her. She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee. Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many. Proverbs 4:4-10
@@stephenpeppin5537 Just as I thought. You're quoting random unrelated passages and have no capacity to apply what you quote to real life. All the best, have a nice day.
"Sting operation" is the perfect description of the transition from Romans 1 to Romans 2...
Thanks for the video. You're in context.
Hello brother I enjoyed this man’s exegesis even though I think he’s wrong the context Isabell doctrines of demons in Genesis chapter 3 with eve genesis chapter 6 with the sons of God in Genesis chapter 11 with the tower of babel Deuteronomy 32 talks about The sons of God in the ESV translation or the net Bible older Bible translations like the king James will see the sons of Israel but the dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint says sons of God for a deeper dive into this check out Dr. Michael Heizer on the naked Bible podcast
Paul when talking about homosexuality does not speak of it in terms of violent abuse, pederasty, or non commitment. So don't put all these extra words and ideas there. If these were so common to greco-roman culture then what would prevent him from describing it that way?
What he does actually describe is sexual orientation. "Men with men" (gays) and "women with women" (lesbians). These are the "degrading passions."
Afterward, a "reprobate mind" is when evildoers approve of what they do and applaud others just the same ... when they are proud of what they should be ashamed of.
Romans 1 is Paul's overview of past Gentile cultures that go down an immoral stepwise staircase. He is describing the society's that resulted from ungodliness.
It's exactly what you see happening again now in many societies today, especially in Europe and the USA.
Paul does not mention women with women. Rom 1 basically says "their" (i.e. the idolaters') females did something you wouldn't expect them to do, and similarly "the" (i.e. the idolaters) males did unseemly things with each other. Yes, the language is negative "unclean, dishonourable, unseemly" but does not go so far as calling it sin, so neither should you.
Paul's "staircase" argument reflects 1st cent. Jewish stereotypes of pagan society. But his ultimate goal is to point out that "you have no excuse whoever you are when you judge another, for in passing judgment you condemn yourself, because you the judge are doing the very same things".
@@MusicalRaichu the Romans 1 crowd is already condemned for many sins of unrighteousness including the degrading passions of homosexuality. The Jews in Romans 2 also are guilty before God in spite of the law and religion. But God is the judge, "for the wrath of God is revealed." St. Paul is also not qualified to "judge" but he was qualified to bear witness to the truth. We are obligated to also bear witness to the truth. The message of Jesus was to repent - Luke 13:3. We ought not to try and justify ourself or sin.
Even Plato, who was a pagan philosopher, taught in his "Republic" that homosexuality was unnatural (against nature). And, in his "Laws" has it criminalized.
Jesus said "God made them male and female." Do you imagine he taught something else concerning the joining of two into one?
@@st.christopher4854 There is no mention of homoxesuality in Rom 1 (or anywhere in the Bible or any document written before the late 19th cent). Don't confuse (a) males having secs with males, which happened for a variety of reasons, with (b) a male's innate attraction and capacity for intimacy with another male, something the text clearly does not describe.
Furthermore, as I already pointed out, he does not go as far as calling their unconventional secs behaviour sinful. You need to accept what the text actually says, not read into it your preconceived ideas.
All the best.
@@MusicalRaichu the wrath of God is real. Quit trying to hide behind a falsehood. Paul says in Romans 1 that we (all of us) are WITHOUT EXCUSE. So please stop trying to make excuses and read what St. Paul truly says. Homosexuality is not new, it's been around even before Sodom & Gomorrah, and that was a long time before St. Paul and Plato.
@@st.christopher4854 It always existed, but it was not understood or categorized as involving "the same secs". Patriarchal understanding had completely different categories. You cannot understand Paul or any of those ancient writers without understanding the way people used to think. Reading "homoxesuality" into these ancient writings is anachronistic and will only lead you astray.
In any case, the main point is that the Bible does not say that homoxesuality is a sin. That false teaching developed from a mistranslation in 1 Cor 6.9 since around mid last century. It's complicated, but it's good news! You don't have to condemn people who are doing nothing to hurt anyone but only want to love and be loved in the way God has granted.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:2
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 1:10
Paul couldn't have made it plainer. Christianity was founded in the Old Testament, which forbids homosexuality.
The law of Moses forbids a lot of things - how much of it do you observe?
@@BernLeckie The Ten Commandments were sufficient for anyone outside of the nation of Isreal in Moses' time. Anything that is also found in the New Testament still stands. Homosexuality is still counted as sin in the New Testament.
@@henryschmit3340 Interesting that you reference the Ten Commandments - I wrote a reply to another commenter about that just now! It was longer than our comments here, though, and I wouldn't disrespect you by copy/pasting. However, I think this is an important thing to get to grips with - should we take a "law first" approach or a "Jesus first" approach when understanding the link between Christianity and law? I'd suggest that, as good as the law is, the entire New Testament shows that we need Jesus first to stand any chance of living up to God's intentions and, uncomfortably, Jesus then applies the law differently for different people (e.g. Matthew 19:21 - or have you sold your possessions too?) I've discussed this more with @gordoncrawley5826. What do you think?
@@BernLeckie If it is Jesus first, then we should also follow His commands... He is the final Judge after all.
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)
Some things are not just in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament also...
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 homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
God doesn't change, and sin is still sin.
@@henryschmit3340 Amen to all you have quoted, although it's important (and part of the point of the video here) to understand what people meant at the time by these terms, which might be different from how we use them today. I hope you don't think we're trying to excuse and get away with sin here. It's more that Jesus deals with it in all of us through fulfilment of the law, as you have shared. As Jesus also demonstrated, fulfilment can look different for different people, and our instructions from him also include, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:1-3)
So let's follow Jesus and not judge each other! Instead, do you mind if I ask how or why do you think God might have prompted you to focus on these verses in particular? Is there anyone you know who is particularly struggling with these issues?
We have to be always growing in understanding of complex issues
Agreed! Thank you for doing this here with us - hope you find other helpful material too!
Yes, Paul was condemning homosexuality. No, you can't explain it away to lessen the condemnation of it.
What Paul meant by homosexuality is still a question, though. What do you mean by it?
@@BernLeckie Any sex outside of marriage was condemned. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. People are going to great lengths to obscure the plain meaning Paul gives.
How can simple texts like these be deliberately 'misunderstood ?
Romans 26:-
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 27:-
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
So...
Remembering how God dealt with the perverted inhabitants of the city of Sodom; I think this video is merely another attempt to deny God's Word whilst 'normalising' the sexual perversions God detests.
Luke 17:29:-
“The day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.”
It’s plain as the nose on our faces that Paul is condemning homosexuality in these passages. The verbal judo going on in this video is astounding. This is such a vile deception.
'Women changing the natural use into that which is against nature' almost certainly doesn't refer to female-female sexual behaviour (which virtually no one in ancient Rome during the era of the Principate was aware even occurred - depictions of such are sparse to the point of being almost non-existent, as are literary references to it), or if it does, it is an interpolation.
It just doesnt count , as the bible is a subjective book with subjective man made moralities.
I think you're misconstruing the text somewhat. The words he uses are "unclean", "dishonourable", "unseemly", so it's likely referring to consensual acts, not abusiv ones. Otherwise he would have called them "sinful" or something more serious.
Hi - thanks for your comment! The words you're referring to have a wide range of meanings in the original Greek, depending on their context - just as the English words like "dishonourable" could seem trivial in some settings (e.g. someone behaved in a dishonourable way by being a bit rude), they could also be extremely serious in others (e.g. someone had a dishonourable discharge from the army, meaning they may have committed a crime). So it's difficult to make the case that the adjectives imply consensual, non-abusive acts. Whatever Paul was precisely referring to, he was writing in a culture where abuse was prevalent, as was highly sexualised and consensual idolatry. It's likely that either of these things would have been more prominent in the mind of a reader/listener when hearing Romans 1 than a loving, consensual, same sex relationship. But it's also important to note that, whatever we conclude about this, the attention-grabbing point Paul was making in Romans 1 about sin did not turn out to be a list of things by which to condemn people - keep reading to Romans 2!
@@severnvineyard Paul is not talking about committed relationships in accordance with secs orientation which they didn't even know about. Abusiv behaviour was prevalent, but my impression of Rom 1 is that it's probably about specific idolatrous practices that were more "unseemly" than abusiv.
Paul made no general statement about all secs between males being sinful. Maybe he thought it was, maybe he didn't, but the letters that have survived make no such statement.
@@MusicalRaichu The underlying premise of Romans 1 is "the Wrath of God" against the ungodliness of those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness which is why the Gentiles need the gospel. If pagan's were solely liable due to idolatry, St. Paul could have said that in one sentence.
το τέλος
@@st.christopher4854 Paul is addressing the friction between Jewish and Roman Christians in Rome. Rom 1 was a stereotypical Jewish argument against pagans. His point is that the "ungodliness" was not only about the Romans but also those who judge them (Rom 2.1) who do "the very same things", namely (Rom 2.17) the Jews.
The argument Paul recites does entail idolatry resulting in sins listed in 1.29-31. Before that, he mentions unconventional secs behaviour that even their own culture saw as shameful, but my point is that he does not refer to it as sinful. It was presumably consensual harming no one, so there was no basis to consider it sinful. Rom 1.27 does not appear to describe the secs abbuse that was also prevalent in Roman culture at the time, which is likely what Paul does refer to as sinful in 1 Cor 6.9.
@@MusicalRaichu in 1 Cor.6:9, Paul uses the same Greek word used in Leviticus (which clearly has homosexuality as a sin) from the Greek septuagint of the Old Testament. The Septuagint is what was widely available. The early church fathers mention the sin of homosexuality. It is a sin because it is contrary to the laws of God, creation, and nature. Homosexuality is also an insult to procreation and thus an insult and confusion to children. Same sex marriage is a mockery of what God designed and planned and instituted for man and woman.
Better to honor God and fear the Lord.
The world today is corrupt beyond imagination and getting worse. Now there is a group wanting to make pedophilia no longer illegal. Another group says that bestiality is a "human" right and should be legalized and should include marriage. What's next? There is no limit, no standard, just immorality. That is sin beyond measure. What more proof do you need? Look at the world you are living in. Christ will come soon in judgement against the wicked and all the ungodliness of men. And, as St. Paul says, "every mouth will be stopped."
All the sexual confusion you see now happening is in fact the revealed wrath of God.
That's a lot to think about. Thanks for a new revealing approach to the verses and the subject. One thing I believe is clear. People say that homosexuality is a sin . They conveniently overlook all the other sins that are always listed along with it. I believe it's never mention alone.
Being homosexual isn't even included the ten commandments but homosexual acts are considered sins because it is not what God intends us to do.
All human sexuality is sinful apart from forgiveness from Jesus.
@@richardaberdeen5298 Not so, the bible says that the marriage bed is clean. And marriage according to God, not perverse legislators.
@@gordoncrawley5826 Human sexuality is not the same as having sex. You really need to study more. Look up "Human Sexuality" in the Britannica. According to Romans, all human nature, which includes all human sexuality, is morally corrupt before God. This is why Romans 2:1 says, that we are inexcusable whoever we are, who condemn someone else, because in condemning someone else, we are guilty of the same. Romans 2:1 is the conclusion of chapter one and should be included in the same chapter. The Bible wasn't originally divided into chapters and doing so has caused much confusion, in particular what Romans chapter one means, because it doesn't inlcude Romans 2:1.
It is unlikely that Paul was ever privy to the intimate sexual exchanges between a man and a woman, much less between two men or two women. More likely is it that he was referring to public displays of sexuality he may have come upon in the fora and back-streets of the major cities he was wont of the visit, displays which may have offended his provincial Jewish sensibilities and which he, in his ignorance, interpreted as “men inflamed in their passions for one another”.
Although Paul would certainly condemn the sexual brutality of the Roman culture that is not his intention here. Paul would have mentioned the brutality here if that was his focus. Instead he condemned immorality in general with a long list of sins that doe include both female and male homosexuality, specifically women lusting after women and men lusting after men. This would include the dominating abuse but no where does he limit it to that and he specifically does address men with men and women with women.
Thanks! I agree it's probably not Paul's intention to condemn a particular behaviour as much as to draw on the reader or listener's general sense of things which were to be condemned. He does this using the words "they" and "them" a lot, although we probably realise at some point (with awkwardness) that Paul must also be including us among the people worthy of condemnation - this is the springboard into Romans 2. I think the issue Owen was highlighting in the video was the potential difference between our interpretation of "homosexuality" today and the abhorrent practices which served to grab readers' attention so effectively for Paul's opening to a complex text. What do you think the general message is that Paul is trying to convey across his whole letter?
Virtually no one was aware that female-female sexual attraction was a thing in ancient Rome during the era of the Principate, so the idea that Paul was condemning it is anachronistic.
The bible is a man made book with man made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man made errors :
+ light wasn't there before the sun
+ the earth wasn't there before the sun
+ Adam and Eve didn't exist
+ insects have six legs not four legs
+ the value of Pi isn't 3
+ homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary sense
+ the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world
+ the moon doesn't produce visible light
+ etc etc
If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't.
As easy as that.
Paul is a deceiver who teaches a different gospel. Being gay is spoken about in the Old Testament.
It is certainly correct that our phenomenon of “homosexuality” did not exist in the ancient world, anywhere on the globe. That is the overwhelming consensus of scholars of the history of sexuality working across a whole array of disciplines. Nothing Paul or any ancient person or text said can legitimately be claimed to address or have in mind or apply to our “homosexuality” and LGBTs. All of it was uttered, written, and formulated without the slightest conception or awareness of phenomena such as ours. Indeed, the bulk of the transitional period from an ancient to a modern construction of sexuality would come only millennia later, roughly 1600 to 1800 CE, though the transition wouldn’t be complete in the modern industrialized world until well into the 20th century. During that transitional period, as in early attempts to look back across the divide, and during encounters between people from different parts of the world, great confusion reigned. People found it extraordinarily difficult to understand a different construction of sexuality, or even that they were encountering such. The early ethnographic literature is replete with tales of utter sexual incomprehension. Paul can no more address our phenomena than Anacreon or Plato can. And though, in unbridled fits of reader-response criticism, some modern readers can enjoy reading some Anacreon, the ancient Greek poet would have been as horrified by our “homosexuality” as modern LGBTs would be were they to conduct themselves by Anacreon’s assumed sexual code.
However, the portrait you paint of ancient pederasty is a stilted, one-sided, cartoonish caricature that would make just about any classicist or historian of ancient sexuality laugh in your face. You really need to read some ancient pederastic poetry. Start with _Greek Anthology_ 12, the so-called “musa puerilis.” Then move on to the pederastic poetry of Anacreon, Bacchylides, Callimachus, Catullus (Iuventus poems), Horace ( _Carm._ 4.1 ), Ibycus, Theocritus (among the _Idylls_ ), Theognis, Tibullus (3.11), and Vergil ( _Ecl._ 2 ). You may also wish to stop getting your information from inexpert and never entirely accurate biblical scholars, none of whom are recognized experts on the history of sexuality. Read the expert secondary literature directly. You can start with the articles “homosexuality, male” and “homosexuality, female” in _The Oxford Classical Dictionary_ (online ed.), and the sources cited therein. You can then get a more global approach from the following:
Aldrich, Robert, ed. _Gay Life and Culture: A World History._ New York: Universe Publishing, 2006.
Edsall, Nicholas C. _Toward Stonewall: Homosexuality and Society in the Modern Western World._ Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2003.
To get the truth, see videos and writings of scholar, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, who is the leading expert on the Bible and homosexulity. All of the attempts you find on the internet to downplay Paul's condematio of homosexuality in general are not true and twisting of the words for particular agendas.
This is what monsters of high society do
Appalling mishandling and selective use of the word of God.
Sex with barren woman was unnatural? What about Abraham and Sarah? Or Hannah?
According to Romans and according to the findings of modern behavioral science, no man or woman has perfect sexuality; "for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." Falling short of the Glory of God is the same thing as falling short of the perfect sexuality of Jesus. The conclusion of Romans regarding human sin is this: "Therefore you are inexcusable, O one, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." And Jesus says, "judge not that you be not judged." When Jesus walked this earth, he condemned no one other than self-righteous religious hypocrites, even though historians estimate that at least 40% of the crowds who hung around Jesus were LGBTQ folks.
How would you know that somebody was infertile in those times?
Good question! I guess people have always worked this out by trying and failing to have babies, and then coming up with different ideas for how to get around that. This would include looking to other gods and goddesses, as well as trying lots of different rituals which might have been seen to have power if you knew just a story of someone who had a baby after engaging with them. Scholars today doubt there were many cults which were purely focused on fertility, but there's an abundance of archaeological evidence for widespread symbols of fertility being found on streets all over the ancient world.
It is against the natural law for same sex sexual relations. What is the fruit of this?
Great question! Lots of things come from physical intimacy, as I'm sure your own experience confirms. Some are unhealthy, e.g. desires which might undermine another relationship commitment, and some are healthy, e.g. the reinforcement of a relationship commitment. What other fruit are you thinking of?
Context is everything
Sounds like today.
The last argument of what Paul might think of a modern consensual same sex relationship is almost not able to be discerned. Paul and the Roman Empire as you said, had little to no examples of these relationships. They may have existed rarely but as you said. They would probably be frowned upon by even the male population committing pedastry and rape. Consensual sexual relationships were far less of a norm in that culture. So to be sure it can only be speculated what Paul might think of the modern. But the fact remains that same sex marriage is a newer concept and also consensual same sex relationships have always happened. I'm sure Paul would not be in favor of putting same sex attracted people to death. Nor victims of abuse. It's obvious that Paul gave a damn about people in general.
Hello - thanks for your thoughtful reply! Indeed, it's hard to discern what anyone thought of something they had rarely, if ever, encountered and would not be codified into law for 2,000 years after their life! Part of that discernment is what you're engaging with here - trying to work out what was in the writer's culture and what could have been their intention for writing. Romans is a complex text, well worth absorbing in full - and yet, we only have to get as far as chapter 2 to realise chapter 1 isn't a basis to condemn anyone. Thanks for considering this with us!
The Kingdom of God: Perhaps that is whereever believers are following the example of Jesus.
This is a good explanation of the times in which Paul wrote his letters. We must always strive to understand what the writer meant as they described their understanding of God, who is completely unlike us. You've done a great job in setting the culture Paul was speaking to. As a priest in the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, I am grateful for this video and hope it helps further the acceptance of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, KJV).
@@davidlafleche1142 "why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15.10)
@@MusicalRaichu "Go, and sin no more."
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:21-27
@@stephenpeppin5537 Look up "The Case of the Missing Commandment" (homepage/about).
For more information check out the unseen realm by Dr. Michael Heizer a Hebrew Semitic scholar
And suddenly we awaken and realise millennia of scholarship, translators and tradition have been getting it all so wrong. Seems legit
Didn't people say something similar as the US descended into Civil War over slavery, though? Wouldn't it be good if God could grab our attention and change the world through us without actual armed violence?
What has slavery and the US civil war to do with the topic of this video?
Are all the saints of the past now to be viewed as violent racists?
@@MrWholphin No - did I suggest that? I'm sure you are aware, though, that interpretation of the Bible played a big part in motivating participation in the Civil War, on both sides, and many fought for the realisation that many centuries of "scholarship, translators and tradition", as you put it, had not been correct. Freedom should always have triumphed over slavery. Would you not agree?
@@MrWholphin you can be LGBT and Christian 👨❤️👨.
Owen, if it is Jewish law forbidding something, is Paul not speaking out against Jewish law. He was meant to be preaching to gentiles so was he not trying to get people to move away from Jewish culture an religious practices
I doubt he meant contraception.
Paul spoke out against tradition, not against the law itself.
@@davidlafleche1142 I think it's hard to say whether or not Paul was "against" the law - he recognised as divine, but also that it was not going to save people. As far as I understand, that's not God's fault but our failings in the way we treat the law and our lack the ability both to live up to it and to let it shape our hearts and minds. We need Christ for that. With our minds changed by Christ, we then tend to see life, love and law differently. Have you experienced this?
@@BernLeckie I do study the Old Testament intensely. I know I don't keep the Law, but I can still learn something from it.
Cultural analysis contradicting the clear meaning of Paul... What a stretch!
All your sins are equal in the eyes of God. People should try to solve there own faults before they condem others for theres. Love is the greatest comandment perhaps we should start there. To hate people for being gay would then be to break the greatest comandment.
Everything in the bible should be taken with a grain of salt. Attributed to does not equate to an accurate quote. Myths are not facts.
22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." ~Leviticus 18:22
Pretty clear.
Instead of rationalizing a gay lifestyle, investigate why you are led to live that way. There is usually always a fairly clear reason.
@@communitybirthcenter321 Thanks for your comments! There are lots of other rules in Leviticus - how many do you follow? (Genuinely interested and not trying to start an argument, by the way - I just find it fascinating how some of us focus on certain laws and overlook others, and wonder why!)
@@communitybirthcenter321 Research with identical twins, who were raised apart, indicates there is frequently a genetic component--but not always. Other research, and especially that by proponents of "depth psychology" (eg, Freud, Jung, Adler, etc.) emphasizes early childhood experiences. While many factors have been identified as influential in the development of one's sexual orientation, there is no theory has applies to all cases. The only thing that can be said for sure, is that individuals do not choose their sexual orientations.
@@BernLeckie Hi. I mean no animosity either, and appreciate the discussion. I believe in every concept-and law- in the bible . I do think not all translation is accurate. I try to look at the original language as much as possible when something seems ambiguous. Male homosexuality is a pretty clear sin. As far as the other OT and NT laws, sure, I love the wisdom in all of them and try my best to follow them, eat kosher, and share the knowledge. But I am not legalistic about the lesser things such as food or cleanliness law, nor would I put that on my brethren.
But male homosexuality is extremely destructive to women, children, the family unit, and therefore society as a whole, so I do not condone that in any way. When I am unsure about the importance of a law. I try to adhere to the Jewish belief that the 3 worst sins are idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder; and that it is better to die than to commit them.
Happy Christmas~☆ 😊
@@Pootycat8359 hi. I do believe feeling gay or gayness can be multifactorial. My experience is that it mostly stems from a bonding issue with the same-sex parent...
But God has laid down the law for us to live our best lives, which affects those around us and beyond us. Our feelings are not always worthy of being acted on because they lead to sin. And living a gay lifestyle is one of them (according to the bible).
Happy Christmas~☆¤
It seems that today's pederasty manifests itself in very different ways because the Christian concept of Marriage has been incorporated in our legal system so as to make that institution quite different from that of the Roman notion of marriage. To the extent that it seems to image itself as like a rather elevated relationship that is ideal in our culture, of an equity between the sexes, then it gains acceptance. But that brings to mind the issue of the actual sexual practices in todays society especially that in the gay “community.” The open brutality and inequities of the Roman system are not permitted. But they may take place subrosa. and as they become more accepted as normal, they may become more overt as Christian morality loses its hold on public opinion.
America today is not a Judeo-Christian country anymore but a Pagan one worshipping sex, Hollywood and the Democrat Party.
Hysterical, bigoted claptrap.
Paul is against circumcision Titus 1: 10.. it's an everlasting covenant.. moreover Peter and Paul separated gospel due to Circumcision.. Galatians 2: 7- 8.. Paul was the first pope
Paul explains why the circumcision was not necessary.
We have to go back to Abraham who is the father of the faith. For it was he that the promise of a substitute son was made too. And Abraham was called righteous because he believed God was able to do that which he promised.
Abraham was before the law, the temple and the priesthood and he was called righteous before he was circumcised. The promise now fulfilled there is no need for circumcision.
ua-cam.com/video/PL-JKEIlSUA/v-deo.html
Sounds extremely good for an uncircumcised person.. here's more facts about the pharisees doctrine
@@inthenamemosthigh
The pharisees doctrine was just that. Their doctrine.
They thought living by their rules justified them. It was jesus who told them they clean up the outer but inside are filthy.
If you go back to the beginning and read what God wanted from them, and that being man having hearts of flesh and the laws written on them, not stone tablets. We can almost stop right there.
@@dw3403 the gospel of the uncircumcised.. and you are already saved and your faith can move mountains unto the sea.. and oh the way you speak.. oh so Grace full.. .. you are so shining bright.. go on with your graceful self and prance on... Your empty word..🐖 trampling on what is precious..
@@inthenamemosthigh
2 Corinthians 11:3 -
But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
God already defined the wickedness of homosexuality by saying “ it is perversion “ and demonstrated his opinion by sending fire and brimstone on sodom and Gomorrah
So Sodom's sin was homosexuality?
Paul never married...I guess I didn't know
Paul is anyway a special guy: first he hates Christians, then he hates Jew-Christians, then he hates sex in general and even within man-woman marriage he preferes no sex.
I don't care what Saul/Paul said about it. Jesus didn't say a thing about it. By the way, Saul/Paul went from persecuting Christians before his "conversion" to continuing to persecute Christians after it. Saul/Paul is just another human with an opinion (on too many things I think). His opinions are no more noble or Christian than mine.
2nd comment im 59 and finding stuff out from the Bible i never saw before like a pastor once told us he pointed out when joshua an his men went into a camp one of the soldiers just went into a tent speared this guy in his back while he was having sex with the woman an the spear went through her too killed em both some ppl will tut tut dont wanna hear about that but hey it is what it is and noah got drunk after the flood (i would of to ) lol seriously though he was so drunk under the grapevine they grew grapes his son had to cover him up lots daughters after they left sodom got their father drunk slept with him for continuation of children um i would of waited to meet a christian guy but it is what it is its good to know about our Biblical brothers an sisters from genisis to revelation their all inspiring even up to this day theres some doozy stories there but even though they sound terrible the terrible bits i mean its all in Gods hands though amen
Personally I would not worry too much about what Paul wrote. The source of his inspiration was mostly imaginary and then presented in the context of Bronze Age ignorance and prejudice. Are you concerned about what Muhammad said or Joseph Smith or countless others. Would you have been if you were bought up in a different family or culture. I admire your sincerity though. Good luck.
ever heard of the Maka'hiki festival in ancient Hawaii??? pretty distrurbig, and still hugely corrupt....huge amounts of kids are molested and twisted....OMG such disturbing behavior...]
Test Paul as a true apostle
It doesn't matter what Romans thought was right or wrong. It's about what the Bible says God says that's right. We as Christian's can only try to live like God wants. Paul was Jewish faith then Jesus opened his eyes as a Christian. Your trying to make it sound like Paul lived the life of a Unsaved Roman. May God bless everyone and their purity of marriage between man and women!!!!
Hi Billy - thanks for your comment. What parts of the video give you that impression?
If you don’t know how to spiritually discern, you have been listening to too many men, and need to seek Jesus with all your heart, read his word, the King James Bible is good, as Catholic and Anglican leaders are praising Islam , which denies the most important part of the Bible, Islam say Jesus did not die on the cross!!!! Average Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims should give this much deep thought.
1 Corinthians 2:14
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Trust no man
Psalms 146:3
“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”
God gives you the increase in knowledge through his Spirit,
1 John 3:24
“And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.”
1 Corinthians 3:16
“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”
This is Paul speaking , but if you know the spiritual things of God, you know it is Jesus speaking to you,
1 Corinthians 14:37
“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
And Jesus tells us clearly through Paul that while we are under Grace, sin is still sin, don’t do it, all fornication is still sin,
Romans 6:15
“What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”
Don’t trust any man, ask Jesus for understanding and read his word King James Bible is good) continually ,
Matthew 15:9
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Colossians 2:22
“Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?”
1 Corinthians 2:5
“That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
2 Timothy 3:16
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
Leviticus 20:13
“If a man also lie with mankind, 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.”
John 4:24
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
John 14:6
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Read the Bible continually, ask Jesus for understanding, he is the way to Increasing your knowledge of him,
1 Corinthians 3:7
“So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”
A planter is a sower of the word, he that watereth helps the word grow, but as you can see, men are not anything,
Hi Gary - thanks for the reminder to seek Jesus and discern - it's something I love to do, and I'm sure I should also do more. When you have done this, what have you seen God change your mind about the most?
@@BernLeckie how do you seek Jesus , and how do you discern?
@@BernLeckie and do you discern any kind of fornication, as a way to seek Jesus?
For bern Leckie, hope this helps with discernment, the law is till good, even though we are under grace,
Romans 3:31
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”
Romans 6:15
“What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”
Romans 7:7
“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
Romans 1:26
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:”
Romans 1:27
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
1 Corinthians 7:2
“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
2 Timothy 3:16
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
Leviticus 20:13
“If a man also lie with mankind, 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.”
Jude 1:7
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
Only ONE Gospel:
Gospel of Reconciliation.
All other gospels are accursed.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
Homosexuality IS condemned by GOD in the bible in both the new and old testament scriptures multiple times. God created marriage to be one man with one woman. Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind. We are pretty much there now.
Ok… Paul’s letters are obviously very well written and reflect Paul’s background of a polyglot and scholar. My question is this: do Romans 1:27,28 and the subsequent verses referring to homosexuality reflect Paul’s personal opinion, or are they a revelation from God? Because if they are an opinion, we ought not forget that Paul got at least one thing wrong: he persecuted the early followers of Christ until he himself got to see that the myth was true. (or so scripture claims). Further, his authority to do so proceeded from the Old Testament (or the herein mentioned Jewish law).
PS I think that the language “committed shameful acts with one another” rather than “unto other men” points to consensual homosexual relations rather than male rape/exploitation…
Rom 1 is not about homoxesuality. The category of "liking the same secs" would have been foreign before its invention around a century ago. His phrase "males in males" fits what we might loosely classify as homoxesual today, but as the speaker explains, the majority of men having secs with males in Rome was not based on mutual attraction or romantic interest.
Your translation seems a bit biased. It said "working unseemliness one with another". "Shameless" is too strong, and "one with another" does not necessarily imply mutual desire, just one person doing something to another within the group, the group in this case being "male idolaters".
That said, I disagree that Rom 1 is about anything abusiv. the language is too weak. the idolators were doing things that most people would consider shameful, but it doesn't say they were sinning.
@@MusicalRaichu I rather respectfully disagree. I have not read Paul’s letters in the original language they were written in, presumably Ancient Greek? (I’m only making baby steps in contemporary Greek.) Therefore I can’t comment on “unseemly” versus “shameful”, but even if that is the case, I understand them to be synonymous. Thinking in a simple minded way, why would Paul bother writing at such length when he received no money, after what was an apparent extreme change of mind as to Christ. I doubt he would write about something he believes the Lord views as merely “unseemly”, that is to say, you can do it, but it’s bad manners. Further, considering his Jewish background, it appears that the stronger word “shameful” seems appropriate. I am referring to the Old Testament quoted by the apostles themselves.
If this passage doesn’t refer to homosexuality, what are we to understand these shameful acts that occur between men to be? You claim “unseemly” is the word Paul used; what are they? Forgetting each other’s birthdays and being mildly rude to each other?
Finally: no no no! With each other is very distinct from men committing shameless acts *to* other men. The Bible is very precise with the language it uses. For example, the Lord asked “Did you murder and also inherit?” and not “Did you steal?”
I have no doubt as what Paul means, my question is on what authority did he say all of this?
@@jordans962 Oh it's definitely about males having secs with males. The issue is more subtle and will take some length to explain.
What you call homoxesuality is an artificial category invented in modern times that was intended to combine two categories, androphilic males and gynephilic females. More loosely, however, people have used the term to refer to homogenitality, males having secs with males and women having secs with females regardless of secs orientation.
Paul's reference to males setting aside the expected use of the female and engaging in unseemly behaviour with other males falls within the broader sense of the modern category of homoxesuality. However, there was no such category at the time. People didn't classify secs according to whether partners were same/opposite. Nor does anywhere in the Bible state that two men in bed is wrong specifically because they're "the same secs". Imposing a modern category on an ancient text only leads you astray.
Furthermore, it fails to describe what we mean by "gay" today. The best counter example I can think of is a boy raised in a Christian home accepting the faith, reaching adolescence to find himself attracted to guys instead of girls, always behaving with decency and respect, and eventually entering a committed relationship with a man. He has not rejected the truth about God, worshipped idols, set aside the use of the female which he never had, burned with appetite, behaved unseemly, been filled with all kinds of evil or approved of wrongdoing. Not a single word of Paul's description matches. It's pretty obvious it's about an unrelated phenomenon with less than superficial similarity.
My point is that Paul's statement that idolatrous Roman males were doing shameful things is not the same statement that all same-secs acts are inherently sinful. It just doesn't say that. The latter idea came about because of the mistranslation of male-bedder in 1 Cor 6.9 and then imposed on Rom 1.27 even though neither text makes such a statement.
For comparison, note traditional church teaching that secs should only be for reproduction. All non-reproductive secs was considered sin. Traditional interpretation of Rom 1.27 was that it was wrong for the same reason that say husband and wife having oral secs was wrong. So what does Rom 1.27 say, the traditional view that "non-reproductive secs is a sin", or the modern view that "same-secs secs is a sin"? Or maybe it just literally says that Roman idolaters did indecent things, corroborating what we already know from history.
Sorry for a long reply, but this issue is complicated. That's why there's so much confusion and disagreement. It's taken me months of research to uncover what the Biblical texts do and do not say, why modern Christians think what they do, and the history of how the various views came about. There's still much I don't know, but it would probably take years to study the topic completely.
@@jordans962 PS there's more information here
ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html
there are several good talks on that channel on this issue.
Well the KJV has "indecent acts" which points not to sexual expressions in consensual homosexual relationships in private, but consensual homosexual connexions in public, i.e., "gross indecency", like in those frenzied orgies at the Temples of Cybele.
The deeper facts have nothing to do with male or female, no jew or gentile ect.........flesh and blood one mind does all good and evil by ONE power the boss of all imagination's that was before creation is the oldest facts called God in all life.
Satan will do anything………
He might try, but he won't succeed!
yep
Doctrines of demons Paul was talking about genesis in chapter 3 the serpent was telling Eve that she could be something other than what God intended to be like God in Genesis chapter 6 the sons of God came down from heaven and fornicated with women in chapter 11 the tower of babel where God gave man over to Lester sons of God as stated in Deuteronomy chapter 32That is what Paul is talking about
Is he justifying homosexuality?
Great question - I think it needs some careful unpacking (so apologies if this seems a bit long...) First, what do we mean by "homosexuality"? One of the points Owen makes in the video is that what would have come to the mind of a first century person would be different from what comes to mind to us today. Paul was not justifying any of the behaviours he listed in the second half of Romans 1, but what he was drawing readers/listeners in to condemn was a sense of "them", other people who ought to be condemned, but he surprises the reader/listener by including everyone (including them, and us!) in his rhetoric. So in Romans 2, Paul makes the point that, as we should all stand condemned, none of us should condemn each other, even where we see sin. There is then a big journey Paul takes people through, leading to Jesus and, on the other side of receiving grace from him, the need for having our minds changed, getting to know God's will and living with believers who have different views on important issues of conscience. Sin is still very much a thing, not to be taken lightly! But what constitutes sin for different people remains a question, at least in some cases. Christians argued then about whether breaking the law on eating food offered to (false) idols was sin - Paul directed people to be Jesus-centred, loving and sensitive to each other. Christians argue now about whether there might be agape, self-giving love which we know comes from God (1 John 4) expressed in same-sex relationships, and I think that's an issue we need to treat in a similar way to the divisive issues of Paul's time. What do you think, though?
I always thought that all homosexuals were born in that condition, through no choice of their own. God would never hold them responsible. Thank you for reinforcing my logic by explaining Paul's words in the context of history.
Genetically determinism is equivalent to "the devil made me do it," just substitute genes. It's unscientific, and frankly dehumanizing, to strip away ones agency in complex decision making
@@jhill1776 No one would choose to be gay, unless they were gay, LOL.
Jesus sets us free from sin. But we must repent and put our trust and faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness of our sins in order to receive the free gift of salvation.
@@heathers4961 Amen to that! Paul's challenge to the Romans, though, is to let God become the driver of our responses to sin, including how we define sin and what we do about it, in ourselves and when we see it in others. "Repent" is a fantastic word - I love it because it's so much bigger than what we've sometimes reduced it to. It involves letting God change our minds, and I've found that included some changes of mind about what I thought the law meant. Have you ever experienced this too?
@@BernLeckie I'm not sure what you mean. God does change us but we must be obedient and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Without the Holy Spirit we cannot rightly divide or properly understand scripture.
The progressive movement has blasphemed Jesus and the scriptures in so many ways because those in the movement are either not following the Holy Spirit or they have not been born again.
NONSENSE - the scriptures are unequivocal - male and female he made them
Agreed! But what has brought that to mind for you?
Wasn’t Jesus gay? I know the priests at my church are.
All of these things described by Paul have been carried out by organized Christian religion. And Christianity became the one thing Jesus most despised, a legalistic institution consumed by a desire for power. And gang rape or forced sex is not homosexuality.
Hi Christopher - it's painful to reflect on this, isn't it? The institutional church has done a lot which has brought harm into the world, and I shudder to think of how I might have been part of it if I'd been there, persecuting scientists when the church did, defending slavery when the church did, pursuing empire and the 'civilisation' of other cultures when the governments involved the church in this, etc etc. Where I find some hope in Paul's letter to the Romans, though, is that I think it shows how God has known we needed saving from our corruption, and how Jesus brings us this even when we have actively pushed for things God didn't want for us. I also think Jesus loves his church - but would you agree? Do you think Jesus might still be able to save us?
@@BernLeckie I think Jesus expects us to save the church from itself. That was his example in multiple biblical references to the religious authorities of His time. That is the lesson too often forgotten by centuries of Christians misled into legalism just as the religious authorities did back then. That castigation was not about those authorities being Jewish, as it was misconstrued over millennia by Christian anti-Semitics, even Martin Luther. All because of biblical literalism, really. Sadly, this is also the driver behind so much latter-day religious deception. The entire reason the Christian evangelical community in the US has leaned into religious authoritarianism is the addiction to political power that Jesus and John the Baptist condemned among religious authorities during their ministry. To me, this is a call to action that Christians either ignore completely or toss their hats into the Personal Salvation game as a means to exonerate themselves from responsibility on this earth. In my new book Honest-To-Goodness: Why Christianity Needs A Reality Check and How to Make It Happen, I call that "salvation greed." Dismissing Jesus' call to repentance and liberation from legalism for selfish purposes...all while claiming "righteousness." It's the same damned thing Jesus despised. And this despicably literal tradition of hating on gay people is just ugly, ignorant anachronism. It's like believing in demons. A belief so outdated it deserves to be relegated just like so many useless laws from Leviticus and more.
@@ChristopherCudworth Thanks for the steer towards your book - I will have to read it! I enjoyed the Amazon preview which included the early chapter inspired by the Sagrada Familia - one of my favourite buildings. Have you been? I found it awe inspiring in a way that I've never (yet) found a church sermon, and I'm still struck by the power of our God-given creativity to help us share and explore the richness of what God has been doing in the world. I share your frustration over literalism, and wonder why we struggle so much to recognise how much we could gain from seeing scripture and life from perspectives other than our own. As much as we can get entrenched, I believe Jesus does offer the best way out, though, in an active sense, not just expecting us to save ourselves (thank God!). In fact, I think Romans is a walk through that Jesus-centred way, even though it begins, intentionally, with material which can distract us - it ends with people who hold different beliefs being brought together in Christ. What's your take on Romans as a whole?
@@BernLeckie Yes, we visited Sagrada Familia four years ago. I was just beginning work on my book and there's a chapter titled Call of the Sagrada Familia. Here's an excerpt:
Standing before the Sagrada Familia and wandering its interior spaces is an immersion in natural symbolism. Yet, the sacred family still resides within the theme. It is that balance of wonder and appreciation that makes the experience so unique and meaningful.
Gaudí’s celebration of Creation through architecture mimics the methods scripture employs in using natural metaphors to depict spiritual concepts and principles.4 In the Bible, symbols such as the Tree of Life, the River of Life, and Living Water depict the relationship between God and Creation.
The same holds true with symbols of the Trinity in the Rock, the Dove, and the Lamb. Throughout scripture, we also find God appearing through thunder, lightning, clouds, and smoke. Meanwhile, humanity takes on prosaic forms, such as frail blades of grass or a humbling pile of dry bones. These, too, are organic symbols, signifying the transient nature of our fleshly lives while calling us to live as fully as we can.
The role of scripture’s organic symbols should be celebrated, not neglected. They create a bridge between our spiritual and material lives and teach us how to appreciate God’s will... “on earth as it is in heaven.”
Yet, some people refuse to look at scripture that way. They insist that the theological tactic of biblical literalism should be applied to the Book of Genesis and its creation narrative. Supposedly this represents the absolute and only path to truth. That approach typically aligns with the claim that scripture is infallible and inerrant in every respect and never changing. Combined, these are the foundations of religious legalism, defined as “excessive adherence to law or formula.”5
@@ChristopherCudworth Agreed. Yet, oddly, even the most conservative scholars will accept a story from Jesus which is entirely fictional, and yet is full of truth in its meanings - I use the plural deliberately. We might keep finding new things every time we look at the parable of the Prodigal Son, but nobody's faith (that I'm aware of) has hinged on finding archaeological evidence of the farm. Could closeness to Jesus be a factor in why it's easier to accept some things from him while finding it hard to accept that there could also be metaphor and myth in the rest of the Bible?
All this is TOTALLY different from gays and gay marriage today. Many gays today do NOT practice anal sex. They are called sides.
After Paul had listed many sins in Romans 1, he says if you have committed any one of these sins then the whole point of his argument was was Rom 2:1 "You therefore have no excuse you who pass judgement on someone else...." I was a Baptist Pastor and overseas missionary and I am gay, medically proven during electronic shock therapy organized by a Dr who was President of the Baptist Church at that time. Happy to explain. I am not sexually active but I was told I was not welcome to even attend a Baptist Church, just because I am gay (and a side). I have now left the church. God creates some people gay and it is perfectly normal. God has also created some of over 1500 animal species gay. Did God make a HUGE mistake? Of course not.
Hi Ron - thanks for adding your experiences here, and for pointing out that what is listed understood by some as sin from their reading of the Bible may be very different from what was described in the Bible and from what they might be condemning today. It's awful to hear about what happened to you with that church. Hoping and praying for you to thrive in your connection with God and believers who can recognise and affirm what God has really been doing in your life. Keep in touch!
In Romans 1, God Himself declares his feelings on homosexuality. He loves ALL humans, including gay people, but condemns the gay lifestyle. If God turns anyone over to a reprobate mind (depraved mind ), they had better listen attentively because that is the last step before hell. ANYONE can be forgiven if they ask & trust the Lord. But, if they prefer their own filth to God's instructions.. uh-oh. John.
John, I think you might have missed the point Paul is making about condemnation - keep reading Romans, at least as far as chapter 2! What do you think of it?
Marriage was originally a part of religion to promote fertility as part of serving the gods and goddesses.
Marriage was created by God Himself in Genesis 2.
@@davidlafleche1142 Exactly!
Marriage was simply Gods means for a man & woman to be joined together for life - one with the other to the exclusion of all others!
@@davidlafleche1142 Marriage wasnt created by god, its man made and practical as a social model.
There are societies where the complete tribe is father and mother of a child , so if a father dies there are many others to care the kid.
@@Pro-j4q God did indeed create marriage. "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:18, KJV).
"The complete tribe" only works when the entire tribe is in agreement. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3, KJV). No doubt, you got that idea from Hillary Clinton, who claimed, "It takes a village to raise a child." The problem is, the global "village" is full of evil people who want to corrupt the child.
In Daniel 3, the entire "village" was ready to bow to King Nebuchadnezzar's golden idol; but three Jewish children refused to violate the 2nd Commandment. They were thrown in a furnace. Fortunately, God allowed them to survive; but that doesn't always happen. During the Crusades and the Inquisition, Roman Catholic terrorists were murdering Christians and Jews who refused to go along with their "village." Socialists such as Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot brutally murdered millions of people who refused to conform with their "village." The 5th Commandment says, "Honour thy father and thy mother," not the evil "village."
It's very clear... this depravity is a sin.
For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others-and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Does your God love everyone? John 3:16-17. Yes, he does. He's Gay.
The bible is a man made book with man made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man made errors :
+ light wasn't there before the sun
+ the earth wasn't there before the sun
+ Adam and Eve didn't exist
+ insects have six legs not four legs
+ the value of Pi isn't 3
+ homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary sense
+ the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world
+ the moon doesn't produce visible light
+ etc etc
If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't.
As easy as that.
just nonsense....
extremely, disturbing behavior
listening to your definition and interpretation of Scripture is definitely not what Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. You quote extrabiblical sources and forces it into Scripture to fit your doctrine. Jehovah (Exodus 6:3 KJV) instituted marriage between one man and one woman till death do them part (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9; etc. KJV). You must understand that even the Jews (Israel) transgressed their LAW and continually gone a whoring after the gods of Babylon Egypt etc. and do the same abominable acts as they did. This is the reason GOD destroyed the world with the deluge because of the abominations for homosexuality, lesbianism, paedophilia, spectrophilia, bestiality, fornication, adultery, idolatry, etc. was abounding (Genesis 6-9 KJV). As for Sodom and Gomorrah was another example of the wrath of on homosexuals who even went as far as to want to rape the men which was angels who lodged in Lot’s house… (Genesis 18-19 KJV). In Scripture it is not just the obvious that is an abomination in the sight of GOD as the lgbtq2z narrative but also fornication and adultery is sin which will lead the practitioner to hell. Note the warning of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 King James Version 9 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 abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. You cannot claim :11 if you are still practicing or in agreement or be entertained by those who practice :9-10. The warning in Romans 1-2 KJV for GOD will hand you over to a reprobate mind… Heed the warning to the church in Revelation 2-3; 20:10-15; 21:7-8; etc. KJV. Since the ascension of the LORD Jesus Christ grievous wolfs entered into the ecclesia not sparing the flock but devour them with traditions and doctrines of man and devils. Look what the lgbtq2z did they perverted the rainbow and used it to their own destruction for this world is set for the destruction by fire... (2 Peter 3:7-13; Revelation 19:11-21:5 KJV) … Thus, if you are practicing any of these abominable acts or are entertained by it or are in agreement with those who do it you are in agreement with their folly and will be under the same condemnation according to the Scriptures. You cannot reason it away or change the Scriptures to suit your doctrine for the Word of GOD is set forever in Heaven and man cannot change it. Man tried it for millennia now and did not succeed; we see today more than 38.000 non and denominational religious institutional organisations who congregates in one or more of the 46+ million theatres aka ‘churches’ reading from one or more of the 900+modern bibles which is not the word of GOD but perversions and is constantly revised to conform to the apostate church! GOD is not the GOD of confusion and His word is not of private interpretation…
Paul was not confused in what he wrote in Romans 1:24-32 King James Version 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Paul was referring to gays and lesbians but even more than that… You need to repent of your twisting of the Scriptures to force them into your doctrine for you will stand before the Holy and Righteous LORD and Savior Jesus Christ who will be the JUDGE of the world giving account and since you call yourself a teacher know this your judgment will trickster James 3:1 King James Version 1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
Matthew 12:31-37 King James Version 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
APOSTLE PAUL WAS ALSO CLEAR ON WHEN IN ROME DO AS THE ROMANS
So when others sin, do the same???Is that what you think? He meant, be to others what should be good & right by them!!
@@wesleygordon1645 that is your opinion of facts.. Let me have mine. So I guess next when false apostle paul states we should eat all types of unhealthy foods he didn't really mean food. Lol
So folks, this is what false teaching sounds like.
I like how you discuss abusive sexuality in ancient Rome and how sexual relationships were intrinsically unequal. There's even a remark in Martial 6:39 that reads, _"percide si vis, filium tuum, nefas non est"_ ("F*** your son, if you wish, it's not wrong."), see p.40 note 47 of John Boswell's Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Really bad.
And "inventors of evil"? Well we know about Priapus but did you know he's intimately connected with crucifixion? In Virgil's Catalepton 2a.18, we read: _"parata namque crux, cave, stat mentula"_ ("For the cross is made ready, beware! The penis is erect!"), also The Priapeia 83 or 87. Picture Priapus standing erect in more ways than one with his arms extended straight out, with a male member 12 to 18 inches in length. That statue is definitely a cross that is completely different from the warp and woof that hangs in our churches! Scary if you're caught by the farmer and he demands that you mount him. And I read somewhere that Priapus was also a guide in the underworld, so he is also connected with death. Ruh-roh. It means the standard Roman execution cross, or torture-stake, was modeled after Priapus.
Do we have evidence of this? Yes indeed. Literary, historical, and archeological. Seneca Minor describes it in mocking Maceneas' prayer that he'd rather do anything to avoid suicide, even mounting a cross! Here it is: "I should deem him most despicable had he wished to live up to the time of crucifixion! 'Nay', he cries... 'You may nail me up and set for my seat the piercing cross!' Is it worth while to weigh down upon one's own wound, and hang impaled upon a gibbet, that one may postpone something that is the balm of troubles, the end of punishment?", Moral Epistles 101.10-14. The Latin for "to weigh down upon" is _"premere",_ meaning "to press". So here we have the imagery of a man compelled to pierce himself when his leg muscles tire and cramp, forcing him to slump into the down position, for the piercing cross was a somewhat vertical spike atop a horizontal strut that projected outwards (Pozzuoli Graffito, Vivat Crux Graffito).
Now was Jesus historically crucified in this manner? The Roman laws protecting Jews forbade it, but both Philo and Josephus say Pilate disrespected Jewish Law, and a few church fathers claim he was.
You've got to do a video on this!
Additional sources:
Bloodstone Gem at the British Museum
Lucian, In the Court of the Vowels
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 40.1-3 and 91.1-2
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.24.4
Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1.12.3-4, An Answer to the Jews 10.7-8, and Against Marcion 3.18.3-4.
Also known as read your bible
Christianity , as any other religion, is a subjective interpretation of a possible objective god/gods, with man made subjective moralities and rules out of their historic context.
This is typical of a belief in a god or goddess to promote procreation as a weapon of force and coercion.
Homosexuality is still a sin.
What do you mean by "homosexuality", though?
@@BernLeckie 🙄 Really??? You know what it means.
@@anamericanfriend2367 I know that there are lots of things that come to mind for me with that term, but I was wondering what came to mind for you. I'd be happy to go first if you insist, but I'm really interested in what you think more than what I already know I think!
@@BernLeckie Men having sex with men and women having sex with women. That's always been the definition and it was always a sin.
Are you under the law?
You are missing a major part of the explanation for why homosexual behavior is sinful, one that was probably available to Paul: Greeks described such behavior as hubris, pride in dominating another that is also behind the expression of abnormal sex.
From Wiki: 'In ancient Greek, hubris referred to “outrage”: actions that violated natural order, or which shamed and humiliated the victim, sometimes for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser. In some contexts, the term had a sexual connotation. Shame was frequently reflected upon the perpetrator, as well ... '
As we know, Roman justice was very much derived from Greek justice. It was not just aggressive homosexual behavior that was shamed:
'In legal terms, hubristic violations of the law included what might today be termed assault-and-battery, sexual crimes, or the theft of public or sacred property ... another example of hubris appears in Aeschines' "Against Timarchus," where the defendant, Timarchus, is accused of breaking the law of hubris by submitting himself to prostitution and anal intercourse. Aeschines brought this suit against Timarchus to bar him from the rights of political office and his case succeeded.
'In ancient Athens, hubris was defined as the use of violence to shame the victim (this sense of hubris could also characterize rape). Aristotle defined hubris as shaming the victim, not because of anything that happened to the committer or might happen to the committer, but merely for that committer's own gratification:
'...Hubris is not the requital of past injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: naive men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater ...
'Crucial to this definition are the ancient Greek concepts of honour (τιμή, timē) and shame (αἰδώς, aidōs). The concept of honour included not only the exaltation of the one receiving honour, but also the shaming of the one overcome by the act of hubris. This concept of honour is akin to a zero-sum game.'
Perhaps a more insightful version of homosexuality today would include the understanding that ALL deviant sexual behavior is the product, not of lust, but of revenge which is felt as a sense of justice needing to be satisfied in order to right past wrongs.
Feces into your penis yuck. Diseases stink
Hi Don - thank you for your view thoughtfully. You raise an interesting point about people's motivations for sexual behaviour, and in cases where people are having sex for revenge or simply to gain self-satisfaction, there's an abundance of guidance in scripture to say this isn't good. It's not loving, is it? So that would be hard to defend.
But are you correct in assuming that all "deviant sexual behaviour" is like this? You haven't defined this precisely, but it seems like quite a broad assumption. Indeed, if you were to meet a same sex couple that appeared to love each other genuinely, rather than be driven by the motives you have assumed, would this change your view, or have you ruled out this possibility?
Ruled it out
Thank you for your excellent explanation of old dispensation verbiage. As for today 2. Loving kind and caring respectful men who are committed to a compassionate consenting intimate union is OK with God God says in his word How Lovely it is when brothers Love each other ✝️🌈✝️🏳️🌈✝️⭐️✝️💜✝️👍✝️♥️
damnation.....abominable
I think that it is difficult to see Romans 1 in the way in which you describe it. I'm not sure if there are early Christian teachers who commented on Paul's letter to the Romans, but it would be helpful to hear their interpretations of this chapter. I, for one, am a "red-letter" Christian, so I consider Paul's teaching to be nothing more than opinion and feel that his opinion of homosexuality is simply wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong today.
Hi Dave - that's an interesting view, thanks! The formation of a New Testament canon is a topic you might like to explore, by the sounds of it, and much is written about how and why certain texts were included and many others were not. As far as I understand, this became an issue because of disagreements over ideas in circulation and was settled mostly on the basis of how close the writers were believed to have been to Jesus. Paul gets in because of what happened to him, as Luke wrote in Acts, receiving a change of heart and a God-given spiritual leadership role, which would then have been tested in the practice of church planting. I'm wondering what you think of Acts in general, then, as there's not much to put in "red letters" straight from Jesus, but it's essential for any of us who aren't Jewish - otherwise, we'd never be accepted as Spirit-filled by Messianic Jews! I believe that the early Christians found Acts and the letters extremely useful, but I'm also struck by how radically the Spirit was changing believers' minds about things they had thought were permanently settled. What do you think?
@@BernLeckie Thanks for the reply. I don't completely disregard all that is in the books outside the gospels but I only consider them to have authority if they are in line with Jesus teaching and ministry. You might say I would treat them as many protestants treat the books in the Catholic Bible that are missing from most protestant Bibles.
I grew up in a church that studied the Bible constantly. Even then I was not convinced that writings of Paul should have been included. It all seemed very different from what Jesus taught.