Skip to comments.What Jesus said about homosexuality -- Part 2
Posted on 12/01/2011 12:14:40 PM PST by ReformationFan
In my previous essay I tried to show how two of Jesus' teachings bear on the issue of whether He condones homosexual behavior. These were words directly from His mouth that deal with our question indirectly. In this article I plan to discuss an indirect way He addressed the direct issue, as well as a direct way He dealt with the matter directly. Yes, Jesus had a surprising amount to say about homosexuality.
Jesus' commission: The Apostles speak for Him
It must have seemed like a good idea at the time: to print the "Words of Christ in Red." But this marketing gimmick may help fuel the notion that the sayings of Jesus are somehow "more inspired" than the rest of the Bible. That isn't possible. Paul wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16, NASB, emphasis mine) Peter classed Paul's writings among "the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15,16) The New Testament Apostles and the Old Testament prophets agree that every word of the Bible, as originally penned, is exactly as God wants it to be.
The Apostles had plenty to say about same-sex sex, and none of it positive for example, in Romans 1:18-32, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:9-11, and 2 Peter 2:6-10. So when people say, "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality..." they're insinuating that there's some kind of feud between Christ and His hand-picked spokesmen. Not only is there no evidence for that, it's ludicrous on its face. Virtually everything we know about Jesus comes from the Apostles. If they misrepresented His views in their letters, then we can't trust their reports of what He said in the gospels. On the other hand, if you accept "Blessed are the meek" as an authentic sentiment of Jesus, then Romans 1 and all the other scriptures against homosexual behavior are also accurate representations of His thoughts.
Jesus explained in advance how this would work. At the Last Supper, alone with His disciples, He said:
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. ... I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." (John 15:26, 27... 16:12,13)
Just as the Son spoke for the Father by the Spirit (John 8:26-29, John 12:49-50, John 14:10), the Apostles spoke for Jesus by the same Spirit. If you believe in Jesus, you have staked your eternal soul on the veracity of what the Apostles wrote. To believe in Christ is to believe the Apostles; or, to put it the other way around, to disbelieve them is to disbelieve in Him. There is no rift between Jesus and Paul, or Jesus and Peter, or Jesus and John. The black letters are just as much the thoughts and intentions of Christ as the red letters.
Jesus' pre-existence: The Word speaks for Himself
But the excuser of homosexual sin doesn't just have to invent a war between Jesus and His designated agents. He also must pretend that there's contention within the Godhead. The Son uproots the works of the Father.
In fact it was the Gnostics, not the Christians, who taught that Christ was sent to demolish the ways of the inferior Hebrew god (the "Demiurge") and establish the worship of a better, nicer god. Now, if you get your information about Christianity from the "History" channel, you may be under the impression that the Gnostics were a sect of Christians. You may also believe that the pyramids were built by space aliens. Gnostics were pagans. People who say that Jesus repealed the moral law given at Sinai, are ignorantly parroting the dogma of a long-dead cult.
Christians believe that the Son of God did not begin to exist when He "became flesh and dwelt among us." Rather, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:1-3 See also Colossians 1:15-17) Though we can distinguish the Son from the Father as Persons, they aren't separate Gods, or separate parts of God. They are perfectly unified, along with the Spirit. Whatever God the Father said in the Old Testament including what He said against same-sex sex was said by the Son, and the Spirit as well. The holy prophets were moved by "the Spirit of Christ." (1 Peter 1:11) So the command in Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination," came from the Word, the Logos, the Christ just as surely as the command, "Let there be light," and the command, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
It's easy to see, in just the four quick points I've given, that Jesus did say something about homosexual behavior. He said it in the Old Testament, and in the New. He said it directly, by His own mouth; and indirectly, through others. He spoke about it generally, under the umbrella of all OT sins; and he talked about it very specifically, describing the activity. It just isn't honest to say that Christ was silent on this subject.
Or that He approves.
Did Jesus himself say anything about it or just the writers well after his death?
straight from the source.. The Word.
wolfie, did you bother to read any of the post? Your question is answered completely there.
Hint, ‘In the beginning was the Word......’
If you can take the leap of faith that Jesus wrote the Bible stories using these men as proxies, you answered the question.
If you cannot take the leap of faith, it does not.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree 100% with biblical morality, but it does take a leap of faith to say Jesus wrote it. Jesus was a brilliant, literate man that could have written a bible himself if he wanted to, but he stuck with the Old Testament. To those that think like myself, the New Testament is a collection out of many stories that were written by man and chosen by man at Constantine’s Council of Nicea, 300 years after the death of Jesus, out of a much larger pool of stories to be included in the New Testament.
You get no argument from me. I wish more of the church fathers writings made the cut because I think much of those writings are inspired too. That said, when supporting all scriptures don’t you usually get the “stoning is allowed” and encouraged, argument? How do you form your response.
Everything we have about Jesus was written after his death. Everything accepted for inclusion in the New Testament was accepted at the time as written by people who personally witnessed the events recorded and met Jesus before the crucifixion, by a writer recording the words of an eyewitness, or by Paul who (according to Acts) encountered Jesus after the crucifixion, on the road to Damascus. It's your call what that means to you, but if the rest of the Bible is God's word, I feel compelled to accept those passages that are inconvenient to me as God's word too.
Those who are worried about translation errors might check Young's Literal Translation; Old Testament and his New Testament. Both are word by word translations that can be checked against old manuscripts from the first 300 years AD. They don't flow as well as KJV, but they allow a check on whether meaning was preserved in the more popular translations (hint: meaning is usually but not quite always preserved by other translations, and it is identical to the original in multiple passages on homosexuality).
Yes. Mark 7:21 records that Jesus said “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,” and in Matthew 15:19 Jesus said “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies”. The English word “fornications” He used is translated from the Greek word porneia. Porneia is defined among other things as 1) illicit sexual intercourse,a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. This clearly shows that Jesus did speak about homosexual behavior and considered it a sin.
"The Word" said something about it WELL BEFORE HIS physical BIRTH, as a matter of fact. bttt
Indeed. My Lord and Savior showed compassion on the ill and the disabled. I do not believe he would think behavior which breaks His Father’s laws and results in anal cancer, AIDS and other STDs and other health disorders is “fabulous”.
To those who think like myself, the Bible does not contain the word of God, it IS the word of God. This word was written, by many men, over many years, under inspiration of God. It is infallible, true, and life changing.
Whether or not Jesus picked up pen (quill?) and paper (parchment?) to write the words Himself is irrelevant. They are of and by Him.
Leap of faith? If you are willing to take a step, then why not leap? Jesus, by His word, says he would rather you were Hot or Cold for Him, not luke warm. Luke warm makes Him want to vomit - His words there.
Something about having the faith of a child. Believe the Father and His Word.
I have no doubt he believed it was a sin, just curious as to whether he actually taught it. I can’t speak for Greek and the translation or what was meant by fornication.
“To those who think like myself, the Bible does not contain the word of God, it IS the word of God. This word was written, by many men, over many years, under inspiration of God. It is infallible, true, and life changing.”
I am sorry, but whether you like it or not, that is a leap of faith and not fact. What about the passages and gospels that were not selected? Are they not the word of God because the men that were ordained by God to chooses the passages at the Council of Nicea to be included in the New Testament did not choose those? I assume that if you believe the Council of Nicea, who chose the texts for the New Testament, were also God inspired? If that is the case, you must be either Catholic or Orthodox because the Council of Nicea also effectively created Christian Orthodoxy under the Papacy. If you are a Protestant, then you are a heretic under your own beliefs if you take that “leap of faith”.
Great post. Thanks!
That I agree with. Bisexuality was rampant in the anceint world and pure homosexuality is a relatively modern invention.
Yeah, I guess you know. What facts are you basing this choirboy crap on?
Homosexuality is just partner assisted masturbation.
"Sexual Secrets of the Normal"..As Upton explains, 'the Sodomite is violent against nature because he denies relatedness to the Other; his erotic energy is turned inward.' This is indeed the key point. Man cannot engage in mere animal sexuality without sinking beneath even the animals, who are innocent in their animality. ..."
You asked, I said. If, to you the Bible is not infallible, true and life-changing, then why have it? Of what use is it to you? Sure, it has nice morals, but with what authority? Why is it any better than Marx?
IF you wish to discount the Bible and its truths, feel free to do so. It’s your peril, not mine.
Biblical Morals, which you said you believed in will not grant you Salvation. That is The Law, which is not able to be kept.
‘What about the passages and gospels that were not selected? Are they not the word of God because the men that were ordained by God to chooses the passages at the Council of Nicea to be included in the New Testament did not choose those?’
What? Not sure I can follow that thought process.
Simply read history from Alexander the Great to Louis XVI. There is more than enough writing that homosexual acts were normal throughout ancient Greece and Rome in the Classical period. There is less evidence betwwen Rome and the Renaissance as far as popular culture is concerned, but there were many of European monarchs that swung both ways in that period.
Choirboy crap? Not. These are the FACTS
(As I linked in post #10 above)
The Canon of the NT was “chosen” by the Holy Spirit nor any man or men. Men only acknowledged what the Holy Spirit had already wrought. The Word created the Church not the other way around.
Not to be disrespectful, but isn’t Christianity (as we know it) a state sponsored and state created religion? Created by a pagan emperor at that?
Isn’t it ironic that Jesus wasn’t a Christian?
Because it is based on striving to be more like Christ... or the story of Christ. Everyone teaches their kids morals one way or another and I believe Christian morals, and I do believe in the divinity of Christ, makes for the best possible human. That doesn’t mean Christ himself penned the bible and thus every word from it needs a literal translation. As far as authority, do I beleive that God is going to cast all homos, Jews, etc. to hell? No I don’t. If all biblical sins resulted in hell, Christ himself would be the only one in heaven.
You have to give Constantine credit though. Rome was falling to the barbarians from the North and East and by relocating Rome to Constantinople, he saved Europe for 1,000 years. Without the Eastern Empire, Charles Martel would have been surrounded and we’d all be shooting for the 87 virgins today.
You are not being disrespectful, in fact, you are underlying my point: from Christ’s death to today, the shaping of Christianity had been created by man, who is inherently imperfect. And yes, Constantine’s Christianity was a power grab and a method of control on the populous that had become distrustful of Roman paganism and, with the decline of their society, no longer believed it... and I say this as a practicing Catholic. I would say the original Christians and even the gnostics might have been more right. The reason I stay with Catholocism is their 1700 years of knowledge, writing and translations (after all almost everyone was illiterate though 1,000 years of that period aside from church hierarchy). I trust that they have a better grasp on the foundations of Christianity since they created it. That said, I recognize that the Catholic church, as well as all other churches, are subject to the imperfections of man.
Is a man poking another man fornication? What do you think, hell with trying to figure out the Greek.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ... Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:1,22)
Jesus hates sodomy.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law before, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17,18)Jesus still hates sodomy.
He said he came to fulfill the law, not to alter it. He was born a Jew, of a Jewish mother, and was observant. being more like the Pharisees whom he condemned, than we realize. Evidentally he came often to Jerusalem to observe the Great feasts. Now on thing that distinguished such Jews from the pagans was a rejection of their lifestyle, including their sexuality. Ritual prostitution was part of the worship of the pagans, as was infant sacrifice. That was not always bloody. An unwanted child would simply be taken to an altar and there left to die, as an offering to that god. Pederasty was an integral part of Greek life, and the gymnasium was not unlike some place sin San Francisco, a place where men hooked up. The Jews rejected all that. Such sex would be ritually unclean. Where Paul speaks in Romans of such practices, where he speaks of such things to the church in Corinth, he is speaking as a Jew but also as the apostle of Jesus.
“As far as authority, do I beleive that God is going to cast all homos, Jews, etc. to hell? No I dont. If all biblical sins resulted in hell, Christ himself would be the only one in heaven.”
But, all sins DO result in going to Hell. Any sin will do. All it takes is one. So, for all, this is the destination. It is Only through the saving Grace of Jesus that we are acceptable to Heaven. Without Him we would be judged under the Law, which all have broken.
So under that logic, everyone before Christ went to hell? Sorry, but I am not buying it.
Hello ReformationFan. Good article and the links you sent me on the Robert Gagnon are great. I was listening and viewing some of his stuff and he has an amazing depth and breath — more than I need for the essay that I have to write for this course. I’ll have to par it down (especially without going into the Greek meanings and derivation of words which probably can fill volumes of text books). Still it is very helpful and the Ruth Institute (on his site) is wonderful too — I especially liked the introductory speaker video and her remarks on the family. It coincides with my ideas about the future and the need to conserve Christianity and traditional values in the face of a new hedonism and paganism. I have to run to class... so thanks again!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
You really, really need to read more of that book.
Since the Messiah, the Savior, Jesus has come, and said in His own words, that the ONLY way to the Father is through Him, I would heed that. You may ‘buy’ it or not, your perogative. Christ is the ‘new deal’. Since He came, without Him, a person has chosen Hell. Easy concept, and cheap to ‘buy’.
I used to have a ‘problem’ with that concept (pre-Jesus people being in Hell even though they had no opportunity to know Him). But:
During the three days before He rose from the grave, Jesus redeemed those who had died before His time here, if they accepted Him. He is, after all, God the Son and could do that you know.
We will just have to chalk this up as an honest disagreement. Your beliefs, which I respect, are based on a literal traslation of the Bible that you believe is the literal word of God. I disagree, but we aren’t going to convince each other.
Peace FRiend, work out that salvation with fear and trembling. The only chance we have is here, the book tells us how. I do shudder at the thought of that very divine and Godly Jesus saying “Depart from me” rather than “Well done”. It is eternity afterall.
“So under that logic, everyone before Christ went to hell?”
These passages provide a good response to that.
Romans 4:1-3 ‘1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’
So per Paul the apostle, Abraham was saved by faith in Christ prior to His coming.
Hebrews 11 discusses the faith of the Old Testament saints:
‘1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
5 By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, and was not found, because God had taken him;[a] for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11 By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child[b] when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitudeinnumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them,[c] embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, In Isaac your seed shall be called,[d] 19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel, and gave instructions concerning his bones.
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the kings command.
24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaohs daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in[e] Egypt; for he looked to the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, lest he who destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land, whereas the Egyptians, attempting to do so, were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again.
Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36 Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted,[f] were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.’
There’s no record of Jesus condemning rape...or child abuse...or stealing....or....murder....or any number of ethical points.
Jesus was though, acknowledged in his lifetime as an orthodox Jew, even a Rabbi (which was an informal, but very honoring, designation meaning, simply, “Teacher.”) He had a lot of enemies among the religious establishment of His day—and they (falsely) accused him of blasphemy—which is the legal reason they pushed Governor Pilate for his crucifixion. However, then or later...He was NEVER accused of varying from the sexual morality of the Jewish scriptures...in fact Jesus made that morality more strict.
Lust was named by Jesus as a form of adultery...(a VERY serious, death-penalty offense in Jewish law). (Matt. 5:27)
Hatred was named by Jesus as a form of murder (also, obviously, a capitol offense, in Jewish law).(Matt. 5:21-25)
Easy divorce (common among 1st C. Jews, and Gentiles) was also condemned (so much so that many have thought all divorce was condemned...which would contradict the Old Testament law) by Jesus.
In the process, he looked back to the ideal marriage—that of Adam and Eve (before the Fall)(Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-6). This alone....that “Adam was made for Eve, not for Steve!” as some country preachers’ common-sense analysis puts it, proves Jesus did not approve of homosexual pairing.
The author’s premise above though is simple: If you are a Christian, you accept Jesus as God, and, you accept God as having inspired the whole Bible. The Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, clearly condemns any sort of homosexual behavior. Therefore God condemns it....therefore Jesus condemns it.
There is no way to honestly get around it.
I never said I believed homosexuality was moral, never said Jesus would condone it, and wasn’t looking for a way around it.
The Christian scriptures (the New Testament—as well as accepting the Old Testament) were all completed in the 1st Century. Various interpretations were hammered out and agreed upon primarily in the 2nd and 3rd centuries...with the loose ends (as it were) tied up in the 4th Century.
Roman Emporor Constantine came to accept Christianity in the early 4th Century—with the Church not becoming the official, “state sponsored” religion until AD 391, under Theodosius I, well AFTER Constantine’s death in AD 337.
Therefore it is entirely inaccurate to say Christianity was a “state created” religion, “created by a pagan emporer”...as it’s essentials (as found in say the Apostles or Nicene Creeds) were agreed upon LONG before (decades, if not hundreds, of years) it became adopted by Rome as their official religion.
To say Jesus was not a Christian is a bit like saying Washington was not born an US Citizen—pretty silly on its face.
I wasn’t accusing you of anything—rather was just summarizing the author’s argument.
I think its fair to conclude that, before the coming of Jesus, and...possibly, even now....THOSE WHO’VE NEVER HEARD OF JESUS (like Abraham), IF they really call on God, and trust in His mercy, not their own good works.....will be saved—by the mercy of God in Jesus Christ.
Today, however, anyone who hears the Good News of Jesus—and rejects it—cannot possibly be saved.
This means of course the preaching of the gospel puts people under a different standard...but it also means they are more likely to accept Him, and be saved.
I believe you when you say you aren’t doing that but many homosexuals and their enablers are misusing the Scriptures to try to justify their actions and beliefs. As an objective study of Scripture shows, they can’t prove with intellectual integrity their theory that Jesus approved of homosexual behavior.
‘That said, when supporting all scriptures dont you usually get the stoning is allowed and encouraged, argument? How do you form your response.’
Probably a similar response to what the men who drafted the Westminster Confession of Faith said in Chapter XIX. The Law of God, Sections 3-5:
“3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
“4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
“5. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.”
1) Civil laws--written for the ancient theocracy of Israel--which ceased to exist as an independent entity with the Babylonian conquest/captivity in 587 BC. After that time, Jews never were able to fully apply the laws written for the nation--since it didn't exist as it did before. Christians have never seen the civil laws (stoning penalties, exile, rules of war, and kings, etc.) as applying to us--since the Church never isn't, and never was, a political, theocratic government--as ancient Israel was.
2) Ceremonial laws--written for the religion of the Jews before Jesus--including laws demanding animal sacrifice, and blood purification, religious feast days, and, importantly, Kosher dietary regulations. All of this, the New Testament teaches in various places....was FULFILLED in Jesus, since his death was the ultimate sacrifice, that all the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament were symbols of. The New Testament book of Acts shows too how the abrogation of the religious dietary (Kosher) laws--importantly opened the door to admitting Gentile believers in Jesus. No longer were the people of God called to separate themselves from others in how they ate--except in simple thankfulness to God for all food....since Jesus "declared all foods clean." (Mark 7:19) This is backed up by the vision Peter received in Acts 10 to go ahead and eat "unclean" foods....in reaching out the the Gentiles. Since the 1st Century, Christians have not worried about keeping Kosher...
3) Moral laws: Personal moral, behavioral & sexual laws, are seen in the Old Testament and New Testament as timeless creation-based rules of living. These are most clearly outlined in the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20), and summarized by Jesus as loving God and loving your neighbor. It's important to note the Hebrew way of thinking too...in that it saw laws as expansive, and non-technical...and almost introductory. Therfore when "adultery" is forbidden, ALL forms of sexual immorality--whether technically sleeping with another man's wife is done or not--are forbidden. Leviticus 18 gives the exhaustive, detailed list of sexual sins (which includes homosexuality, bestiality, and incest)...but all of this is seen as built on the adultery proscription of the 10 Commandments.
Christianity teaches that obeying moral laws (such as say, observant Mormons, Hindus, or Muslims do) does NOT save us, rather Jesus does...but, once we accept and believe on Jesus, we are given the Holy Spirit to empower us to love God and love our neighbor...so we will, almost automatically...obey those moral laws--as they are still binding on us. Someone who is NOT obeying God's moral laws...should really question themselves as to whether they truly accept and love Jesus...
“Christianity teaches that obeying moral laws (such as say, observant Mormons, Hindus, or Muslims do) does NOT save us, rather Jesus does...but, once we accept and believe on Jesus, we are given the Holy Spirit to empower us to love God and love our neighbor...so we will, almost automatically...obey those moral laws—as they are still binding on us. Someone who is NOT obeying God’s moral laws...should really question themselves as to whether they truly accept and love Jesus..”
Indeed. I have a cousin who claims he’s a Christian but he’s very loose and liberal on the homosexual issue. Of course, I can’t judge anyone’s heart but I think I need to ask him if he’s actually read Jesus’ teachings on marriage and sex in the Bible. Also if he’s a sexual liberal/libertarian, why would he want to be a Christian?