G
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_W-rDsUwAA05l8?format=jpg&name=small
Go buy yourself another airplane, dude. It's cool - to hell with those sick and hungry kids.

It is OK for a man to marry a man.

It is OK for a man to marry a man.
He didn't say anything about that one way or the other.

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV)

Seem pretty plain. Besides, the topic is "Things Jesus Never Said." It is not, "Things Jesus Said Nothing About."

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV)

Seem pretty plain. Besides, the topic is "Things Jesus Never Said." It is not, "Things Jesus Said Nothing About."
How many LGBTQ people were there in Israel back in those days? To cite the Creation story in Genesis 1, God made EVERYTHING perfect, including one man and one woman to be as one flesh. That was the standard. BUT, by the 3rd chapter, EVERYTHING in the universe changed with The Fall. There is no longer one perfect way; the universe was opened up to countless possibilities.

You never stay on topic. Why should I?

You know, you can believe what Jesus said (and there were homosexuals then since Paul makes reference to them) or you can believe liberal orthodoxy, but you cannot believe both. A person can read the Bible from beginning to end and find no warrant for gay marriage or same sex relationships. I'm sure there are people out there who most sincerely love a 14 year old and would love to marry that child, but we don't allow that. Desire itself does not justify actions.

You said that Jesus was quiet on the subject. I pointed out that He was not. You then change the subject.


EVERYTHING in the universe changed with The Fall. There is no longer one perfect way; the universe was opened up to countless possibilities.

Yes. Murder, for instance, was opened up. Rape began to occur after that as well, but we don't sanction those things. That's a really remarkable argument. "Adam sinned, mankind fell, and perfection was thus greatly expanded." What??? That's completely illogical. I never cease to be amazed at the logical gymnastics you go through to try and make your Christian faith jive with your liberal beliefs. My prayer for you is that you will have a genuine revelation of Jesus in all His power and glory and of mankind in our sin and gross IMperfection.

It is also, incidentally, what I am praying for myself.

No, I didn't change the subject. And no, Paul doesn't make reference to them. You need a better concordance. Actually, Paul was probably gay.

There are age-limit laws regarding marrying underage children. The Mormons and other groups haven't/don't necessarily followed those laws, but we don't care about them, do we....

No, Paul doesn't make reference to them. You need a better concordance. Actually, Paul was probably gay.


You must read the most strange Bible on the planet.

The word Paul used for "homosexual" was a combination of two greek words. One meant "man" and the other meant "bed". They are the words used in the Greek translation of Leviticus to forbid men having sex with other men. The meaning is very plain and is used twice.

In the meantime, we wait in vain for any scriptural reference to validate gay marriage. We also wait in vain for any evidence that Paul was gay, and we certainly wait in vain for any place where "gay Paul" validated or even mentioned his gay lifestyle, or where this gay Paul gave instructions to same sex couples on how to live in the same way he gave to married couples.

You must decide. It is actually very sad to see you go through this. It seems to me you wish to hold the world with one hand and Christ with the other. Can you not see that a belief that something is true does not establish it as being so?

Can you not see that a belief that something is true does not establish it as being so?


So your belief in the bible does not establish the bible being true?

Can you not see that a belief that something is true does not establish it as being so?


Do you mean your own belief that unbelievers go to hell where they are eternally punished? That one?

Do you mean your own belief that unbelievers go to hell where they are eternally punished? That one?

You must be referring to the well established, Bible based teaching on that subject. But when you find a text that says that those who have no faith in Christ will still go to heaven, I'm willing to listen.


So your belief in the bible does not establish the bible being true?

I believe the Bible is true for a variety of reasons. But yes, my belief alone does not, in any way, establish the Bible as true. You are exactly correct.

You must be referring to the well established, Bible based teaching on that subject. But when you find a text that says that those who have no faith in Christ will still go to heaven, I'm willing to listen.


That teaching is not only NOT "well established", the proof has been provided to you many, many times but you simply refuse to acknowledge something that goes against your belief.

As far as what Christ said or didn't say, this is is a "well established" trick of yours - change the subject to avoid confronting your own errors.

You are learning well from your mentor, Trump.

The word Paul used for "homosexual" was a combination of two greek words. One meant "man" and the other meant "bed". They are the words used in the Greek translation of Leviticus to forbid men having sex with other men. The meaning is very plain and is used twice.
Paul made up the word. The Leviticus word means "boy abuser" (pedophile).

All the more reason, because he himself was gay.

Oh, and what about lesbians or trans people? Where are the verses about them?

Here's a website to mull over:

https://medium.com/@belover/leviticus-18-22-means-what-37ed659afc97

Paul made up the word. The Leviticus word means "boy abuser" (pedophile).

All the more reason, because he himself was gay.

Oh, and what about lesbians or trans people? Where are the verses about them?

18:22. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;

There is no "word" used there. "Male" is the greek word for a man, not a boy. The description there is very plain.

You have made up your mind, and now you try to bend the scripture to support your idea. There is absolutely no evidence Paul was gay, not a single shred. In fact, the evidence points more towards Paul being widowed or possibly abandoned by his wife when he became a Christian.

As for lesbians/trans people, lesbians would logically be covered by the verses pertaining to same sex relations. Trans are people with mental illness.

Well, live in your make believe world where Paul is gay and Jesus supports gay marriage. It is your choice.


That teaching is not only NOT "well established", the proof has been provided to you many, many times but you simply refuse to acknowledge something that goes against your belief.

You have provided no proof on any occasion. We have already discussed this thoroughly in a previous post. I'll let you go back and read that.

18:22. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;

There is no "word" used there. "Male" is the greek word for a man, not a boy. The description there is very plain.

You have made up your mind, and now you try to bend the scripture to support your idea. There is absolutely no evidence Paul was gay, not a single shred. In fact, the evidence points more towards Paul being widowed or possibly abandoned by his wife when he became a Christian.

As for lesbians/trans people, lesbians would logically be covered by the verses pertaining to same sex relations. Trans are people with mental illness.

Well, live in your make believe world where Paul is gay and Jesus supports gay marriage. It is your choice.
Best you should talk with someone who knows Hebrew and Greek very well.

Best you should talk with someone who knows Hebrew and Greek very well.

Yeah. Gotcha.

Yeah. Gotcha.
You didn't bother to read the link I posted, didja.

For instance, Looking at the precise Hebrew words in Leviticus 20:13, it is fascinating to note what we actually see and what is not there. What the text prohibits is a sexual relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish.”

Perhaps the ish/zachar difference suggests pederasty. In the extensive scholarly literature, there are many theories. Incest?

Yeah, I know. It'll give you a headache.

Perhaps the ish/zachar difference suggests pederasty.

Wow. What an ironclad idea. Perhaps it suggests something? Yep. Now there is no doubt about it.

In the meantime, the truth becomes clear. "Leviticus18:22 and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.

The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus."

https://www.equip.org/article/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/

You have provided no proof on any occasion. We have already discussed this thoroughly in a previous post. I'll let you go back and read that.


I have provided proof galore. You can deny all you want, but, to use your own words, that will not change the truth.

I have provided proof galore. You can deny all you want, but, to use your own words, that will not change the truth.

Go back. Read. Think. Comprehend. You'll like it once you get it.

See all of you tomorrow. Have a good night. God bless.

Go back. Read. Think. Comprehend. You'll like it once you get it.


We both know who needs to read and think. Just as we both know who is blinded by a belief that prevents you from realizing and facing the truth. You admitted as much when, no longer able to defend your position, you fell on the lamest of excuses - "the Bible told me so".

Your faith is your own and you are welcome to it, but it is never a substitute for the truth. Amen.

https://www.equip.org/article/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/
"About CRI" says it all.

Ten Biblical reasons to believe Paul was not gay.

1. The consensus of the Bible is that any sex outside of marriage is sin.
2. The Bible only describes marriage as between a man and a woman.
3. All Biblical references to same gender sex are negative.
4. Paul never makes any references as to how gay couples should treat each other, which would be beyond amazing if he was gay and felt sex between men was OK.
5. Luke, the author of Acts who knew Paul well and spent a lot of time with him, never describes Paul as gay or gives any hint of any kind that he might be gay. Neither do any of the other NT authors.
6. Paul, in 1 Corinthians, describes marriage as the solution to sexual desire. He does not include gay marriage in that description.
7. There is not a single positive reference in either the OT or NT to homosexual activity.
8. Sodom was clearly judged because of the homosexual lifestyles of many of its men. It is hard to imagine Paul participating in that which caused an entire city to be judged.
9. There is not a single godly man in either the OT or NT who is described as gay.
10. Most importantly, Paul never describes himself as gay or gives even the slightest hint that he might be gay.

OK. Now you can list the Biblical reasons to believe Paul was gay.

I could have added that Paul had been a pharisee. Homosexual pharisees??? Good luck with that one.

And I forgot to mention the clear denunciation of homosexual behavior in Romans 1. Hard to imagine how a gay man could have written that.

I don't know if Paul was gay or not, but I do know how long it takes a gay guy to come out of the closet, and back in ancient times I imagine many were not forthcoming about their sexuality even though it was well know that some liked hairless boys in private if they could afford them. Regardless if he was or not, the writings of ancient man reflect the attitudes of the time with little or no nuance that may be lost in language.

Like a redneck trying to understand rap a few years ago. You listen to rap JL?

The great importance of rap music aside, I'm still waiting for any Biblical evidence of Paul's gay lifestyle.

Besides all that, to say that "I don't know if Paul was gay or not" is on the level of saying "I don't know if Tal is gay or not." Well, there are a lot of things I can say I don't know, but to even raise the issue I should have some evidence to point to that causes me to think it might be true. It's like saying, "I don't know if Tal looks at porn." Why would I even raise the issue to begin with unless I had some reason to think Tal does? Now if I want to make the outrageous claim that Paul was gay, I really need to have some pretty solid evidence considering the mountain of evidence that indicates Paul could not have been living a homosexual lifestyle.

Disclaimer: I don't think Tal is gay or that he looks at porn. Those were illustrations.
I am not a redneck.
I do not care for rap music.

We both know who needs to read and think.

Wonderful. I'm glad you've seen the light!

Wonderful. I'm glad you've seen the light!

Everybody has seen YOUR light and your flashlight needs batteries.

Everybody has seen YOUR light and your flashlight needs batteries.

I'll take all the extra light and batteries I can get. I need them.

Tal, if someone wants to pretend Paul was gay, then that's fine with me, but you can't present it as a Biblical position. That's my concern. A person can speculate from now to doomsday.

Everybody on this board speculates so don't take it personally. How do you know a disciple wasn't gay just because he didn't just say so? Now that's speculation too.

How do you know a disciple wasn't gay just because he didn't just say so?

Already answered that in posts 24 and 26.

Why not speculate that he was a martian, or an olympic athlete, or that he liked to wear high heels? We can't say that he never denied any of that. For that matter, you've never denied that you wear high heels and neither have I, so it would be just as stupidly logical to speculate that both of us wear high heels.

But speculate all you want. You just can't say it is a Biblical position because it is not.

Already answered that in posts 24 and 26.

Why not speculate that he was a martian, or an olympic athlete, or that he liked to wear high heels? We can't say that he never denied any of that. For that matter, you've never denied that you wear high heels and neither have I, so it would be just as stupidly logical to speculate that both of us wear high heels.

But speculate all you want. You just can't say it is a Biblical position because it is not.
What do you believe was Paul's thorn in the flesh?

What do you believe was Paul's thorn in the flesh?

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

When I read the passage concerning this thorn in the flesh, I consider 4 things. First of all, whatever the thorn was, God's grace is presented as being sufficient to overcome that which Paul desired to be rid of. Secondly, Paul, having seen that, says that he will boast in what he had asked to be delivered of. There is no record of Paul ever boasting in homosexual desires. Third, in verse 10 he seems to say that it was "insults, hardships, persecutions," etc. that he was referring to, all of which is testified to amply in the book of Acts. And last, he said earlier that it was a "messenger of Satan", so whatever you want to believe it was, it did not come to him from the hand of God.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that he was gay. We will both someday be held accountable for what we have said to others concerning the nature and will of God. You should consider this carefully. You will be held accountable if you have told others that being gay is just fine since, after all, Paul was gay, and yet you have no reason at all to believe that, or at least nothing you have presented so far.

We will both someday be held accountable for what we have said to others concerning the nature and will of God. You should consider this carefully. You will be held accountable


What is it with you people that you have to end discussions with a threat? Yeah, yeah, we know - the Bible told me so.

What is it with you people that you have to end discussions with a threat?

By "you people", are you referring to Jesus?

"Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of' Judgement" Matthew 12:36.

It is not a threat from me. It is a warning which we would all do well to heed. And yes, the Bible told me that. I suppose from your comment that you have no regard for the Bible. That's your choice. I get to have mine.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that he was gay. We will both someday be held accountable for what we have said to others concerning the nature and will of God. You should consider this carefully. You will be held accountable if you have told others that being gay is just fine since, after all, Paul was gay, and yet you have no reason at all to believe that, or at least nothing you have presented so far.
I asked a simple question in order to find out what you (and others) have decided might have been Paul's thorn. Thank you for your idea of what it was. That was all my question sought. I do not appreciate the judgmental-to-me final paragraph. This is why I dropped off these threads a while ago. Why does your every response to me include scolding and shaming, as reposted above?


It is not a threat from me. It is a warning which we would all do well to heed. And yes, the Bible told me that. I suppose from your comment that you have no regard for the Bible. That's your choice. I get to have mine.
And you did it again! Another threat, more shaming!

By "you people", are you referring to Jesus?

No, I'm referring to you and people like you.


"Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of' Judgement" Matthew 12:36.

More threats.


It is not a threat from me.

Of course it is. God doesn't need to threaten the way you do - like a dockside bully.


And yes, the Bible told me that. I suppose from your comment that you have no regard for the Bible.

On the contrary, I have enormous regard for the Bible. I just don't worship it like an idol like you do.

Discern what is the will of God so you may find what is good, acceptable and perfect.

Do you really think a one-month-old infant that dies spends all of eternity in torture and punishment because of the infant's unbelief? Even worse, do you think God himself acts in such a manner?

Here is where you say, "The Bible told me so".

God gave you a brain to discern his will. Use it.

I do not appreciate the judgmental-to-me final paragraph. This is why I dropped off these threads a while ago. Why does your every response to me include scolding and shaming, as reposted above?

I threatened no one. You stated that Paul was gay. I asked for your support for that statement. You responded with the "thorn in the flesh" scripture. It just seemed that it was a continuation of your "gay Paul" thought. My apologies if I misunderstood your intent.

Asking you to support your statements, however, does not seem to me to be shaming. These are important issues. We should take them seriously and I assume you do and that you are a grown woman fully capable of defending her thoughts. Besides, if my statements are to be regarded as shaming and scolding, then isn't that what you're doing when you refer to me as "judgemental" and accuse me of shaming and scolding?

I was under the impression that this was a serious discussion amongst adults. I'm not sure how else to approach it, but I am certainly open to your suggestions. I regard you as something of an internet friend, as I do Tal. It is never my intention to speak down to you, but I do like to get people to think about what they are saying. If you would prefer me not do that, then I'll stop. But let me point out that you responded to my original post about Jesus not endorsing gay marriage, and it took off from there. Still, you tell me how you want me to approach it and I'll try to be accommodating.


No, I'm referring to you and people like you.

I really don't know how to answer that. I gave you a quote from Jesus that I basically copied in its content in my post. So if you're referring to me, then you are referring to his quote and thus to Him. You'll have to argue with Him about it.

I really don't know how to answer that. I gave you a quote from Jesus that I basically copied in its content in my post. So if you're referring to me, then you are referring to his quote and thus to Him. You'll have to argue with Him about it.


You lack the courage of your convictions by passing off the blame to Jesus. Every time you're cornered, you respond the same way - take it up with Jesus. Anyone reading this sees right through you.

You lack the courage of your convictions by passing off the blame to Jesus. Every time you're cornered, you respond the same way - take it up with Jesus. Anyone reading this sees right through you.

Sometimes I just have to laugh when I read your perpetually angry responses. You wanted to "shame" me for giving a warning about words. When I point out that I got that from Jesus, then you want to get mad about me not having the courage of my convictions. But you, of course, have no quarrel with Jesus Himself. Oh well. It is what it is.

I should know better than to ask this of the angry man, but in what way do you think I was "cornered"? I assure you that I have never felt cornered by you, so I'm curious as to your thoughts on that. Maybe Tal a few times, but not you.

in what way do you think I was "cornered


I know when you're cornered by your answers. When you can no longer come up with an answer, you revert to "The Bible told me so". That was many times. Another typical answer by you is "I don't care", when you have no answer. This last is very juvenile.

The cornered rat has no place to go.

The cornered rat has no place to go Says the tolerant liberal who does not believe in name calling.


I know when you're cornered by your answers. When you can no longer come up with an answer, you revert to "The Bible told me so".

Kind of what I figured. You have no idea. This might surprise you, but when talking about doctrinal questions, making reference to the Bible is actually the BEST strategy. It is far from being cornered and is, in fact, the safest ground to stand on. Perhaps you are the one who feels cornered and has no answers??


Another typical answer by you is "I don't care", when you have no answer.

I have actually said that once (which means it is not typical) and it was in response to someone stating their opinion about a topic. I was telling them I did not care what their opinion was on a particular subject that seemed to have no relationship to the truth.


This last is very juvenile.

So shaming is bad unless, of course, you are the one doing it. You want to know what it means to be juvenile? To refer to one statement as "typical". It tells me, at best, that you don't understand the term "typical".

It really is a curiosity to me how liberals on this board seem to be opposed to shaming and name-calling unless, of course, they are the ones doing it. Why is that? It has never bothered me to be called out when I am wrong or to be asked to see something from a different perspective. I don't see it as "shaming" or whatever, but you guys seem to, and yet you go right on and do it. Strange.