Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Did Same-Sex Marriage Exist in the Biblical World? A Response to N.T. Wright and Preston Sprinkle
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 авг 2024
- This video is the fifth of 20 modules in The Reformation Project's comprehensive, seven-hour video curriculum on The Biblical Case for LGBTQ Inclusion, which is available for purchase here: www.reformation....
An annotated transcript of the video can be accessed here: www.reformation....
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:36 N.T. Wright's claims
2:36 Pausanias and Agathon
4:13 Achilles and Patroclus
5:37 Nero and Sporus
7:07 Preston Sprinkle's claims
7:33 Parmenides and Zeno
8:30 Hippothous and Hyperanthes
11:24 Encolpius and Ascyltos
13:18 Sprinkle's claims about female same-sex marriages
15:02 Bernadette Brooten's work
17:20 Berenike and Mesopotamia
18:12 Megilla and Demonassa
21:01 Clement and Ptolemy
22:34 Sifra on Leviticus 18:3
24:38 Funeral relief
25:42 Conclusions
To clarify NT Wright is against same sex marriage in Christianity. As a historian he is describing not approving what was common place in pagan societies and not Judeo-Christian communities.
What an embellishment to NT Wright's point.
Exactly!
@@hesedjackd.alvarez2452 the young man has a reprobate mind and is blind
I think people are missing the point he's making. He's not saying Jesus approves homosexuality. He's saying Jesus never says he disapproves of it in the context of what he wants for himself and the LGBT community. As Christians, we need to look at what this view has done to a huge group of people. So many have left the church because of the historical view, not because of them rejecting the church but because the church rejects them. And who is ultimately losing? Jesus. We have the Holy Spirit to guide us. And the Holy Spirit has guided me to Jesus accepting and approving this community. Think about his heart. Ultimately, His commands are all related to relationships and creating positive relationships between others and Him. So use your common sense and understanding of His heart. Ask yourself why He would be against loving, committed, monogamous relationships between the same sex. I honestly can't see a single reason. And I look at the Word and all the scriptures condemning it, none of it is talking about these types of relationships. You also have to take in consideration the culture and society of the time. If that is still not enough to give you the open mind to even consider Matthew might be right. If the Holy Spirit still isn't leading your heart to affirmation of this community, then consider this. I believe Jesus is the way to salvation. Belief in Him, accepting Him in your heart, and you are saved. Period. Do you believe someone like Matthew is going to Hell? Or is homosexuality the sin that means he's lost his salvation? If you're like me and believe Jesus covered ALL sin once and for all, then though you believe this community is sinful, can't you at the very least, leave them alone and let the Holy Spirit work in their hearts? The church has done nearly irreparable damage to the community with their traditional interpretation, and ultimately, it's Jesus who is losing out on their relationship. I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the community how I have promoted this historical viewpoint. Jesus wants you too. Just as you are. Don't reject Him because of what the church has done. We've proven fallible before, but He is not. Form a relationship with Him and He will prove to you His heart. Don't reject Him because of us. Love you, Matthew. Love you ALL.
WELL SAID
And did you know that several GOSPEL text of JESUS has PROPHESIED of these Religious devils, who PREVENT people with their LIES and HEAVY BURDENS from entering into the Kingdom of Heaven? And of course because they are VIOLATING THE LAW in doing so, they won't even go in THEMSELVES.!
GOD is ONLY condemning is ALL of those verses the same-gender sexuality USES HE condemns -- They are VERY SPECIFIC! And to ADD in COVENANT RELATIONSHIP HOMOSEXUALITY [such as marriage] is to put TRADITIONS of thinking of MEN, OVER the Wisdom of GOD! GOD chose HIS WORDS CAREFULLY and WARNED Homophobic Men "DO NOT ADD nor DELETE a SINGLE WORD!!. NOT one JOT or Tittle. And CAREFUL SCHOLARSHIP Lead by THE HOLY SPIRIT un-covers that this is PRECISELY what William Tyndale Bibles in White Europe and Miles Coverdale Bibles DID! And ALL English Bibles since them FOLLOWED their ERROR and FOLLY! And Christians today NEVER EVEN KNOW. But the SIN GOD will hold them accountable for is NOT EVEN SEEKING to KNOW. For if one SEEKS then one SHALL FIND. Homosexual Christians [so called gay Christians] are REALLY SEEKING because we have "Skin in the game" It is OUR Eternal Destiny and because we DO SEEK with broken and sincere heart, GOD OPENS the SCRIPTURE unto US and SHOWS us THE TRUTH!
WHY? Because we are in the LAST TIMES and GOD and HIS CHRIST desire a RICH HARVEST of Souls from among the rejected of society and lost LGBTQ+ Culture people. And NO LIE will EVER permit them to COME to CHRIST and be SAVED. Only TRUTH [=JESUS] about their sexuality will ever do THAT. And the TRUTH is Those verses so called "christians" USE in THEIR DEFILED Bibles to include ALL Homosexual Acts under SIN, does NOT include COVENANT-HOMOSEXUALITY. And it NEVER HAS! What is REQUIRED to find out is to go DEEPER into ORIGINAL GOD BREATHED SCRIPTURES so GOD can expose the LIE of Centuries like HE promises in PROVERBS 30:5-6
😇📜😇
I really have a deep respect for the critical and academic nature of your research. It is always of the highest standard. Thank You!
Except for when him and his colleagues constantly conflate the condition of homosexuality with the treatment for gender dysphoria (the only objective precondition for becoming transgender), and the theory of gender identity. If we can’t admit that all of these things are fundamentally different, and are often described in ways that are at logical odds with one another, we will never convince anyone who disagrees with us that we’re honest.
Thankyou for the hard work to research for videos like this one. We can see you have really thought about this. The implications for churches and LGBTQI+ community are huge and videos like this are needed.
Indeed.
We now have evidence and are prepared to defend against this heresy that is Pro-gay Theology.
Yes and it will take courage ,strength,patience and compassion to bring to non affirming churches.
I'm attending an evangelical church and I've had a courage of costs with them.
I very read widely to Masters standards and love Matthews books. However, my leaders are not getting it but said, 'be that as it may we still regard anyone in a same sex relationship as serious sexual sin'.
I made the point that Bible condemns a warp sexuality but it does not condemn modern same sex relationship.
@@Jen8973Perhaps you should consider it isn't your church who is wrong but you.
Answer this: Is it logically sound to affirm on the basis of absence of evidence? Don't you find it the premise and implication (according to Vines) is the Bible "missed" this critical issue?
@@The_Word_Is_The_Wayive seen you respond to many gay christian comments (quite obsessively) and i have to know why it brings you so much joy to turn the most desperate of people away from God? Frankly, if were wrong about this it wont determine whether or not we go to heaven, so if the idea that God is loving brings more people to believe, why are you so willing to turn people away from God? Is it so you can feel justified when were all in the afterlife? You just want to look down on those in damnation and say “i told you so” and that is just to un-Christlike to me. I hope im wrong but you devote so much time to destroying hope that i cant tell whether or not youre evil
@@joshuamay5807
Matthew Vines started an organization and dedicated his life to saying what has been taught about Biblical marriage is "wrong"! I think that is a real example of speaking on the subject matter "obsessively"!
Our hope and trust is to be placed in Christ, not lies. You are entirely wrong regarding whether this would determine heaven or not because the issue at hand is affirming something the Bible never did once. Christ most certainly gave many warnings to not fall for wolves in sheep's clothing, therefore giving warning not to fall for the lies is appropriate. If you have really seen or read my comments, you would see I say everyone is welcome to follow Christ and we all should pray, study the Bible, and support one another in our pursuit of holiness. Naturally, certain behavior has to change. It's not easy, but we can do it with patience, love and truth.
"God is loving" doesn't mean God has no standards!
Very helpful research. Glad I heard the rebuttal before reading the claims they critiqued. Surprised by NT Wright's blunder - he's usually a very thoughtful and thorough scholar and this was quite shoddy treatment by contrast. Same as my view of the clobber passages growing up. I am astounded now that I ever thought of, say Genesis 19 or Judges 19 as pertaining to same sex marriage! What was I thinking? Well, that's just it - I WASN'T thinking...not carefully anyway!
Thank you for the research / scholarship. It is needed.
Read Romans 1 God condemns homosexuality repent and follow Jesus Christ
@@saintbrian2852 Romans addresses unrestrained lust, not sexual orientation. In the ancient world, same-sex behavior was widely viewed as an expression of excessive, self-seeking lust. Paul’s writing reflects this understanding by his description of people “exchanging” or “abandoning” heterosexual sex and repeatedly using the term “lustful.”
The relevance of the “shamefulness” of the passion (cultural shame, not moral shame) was that it degrades the man’s status in his cultural context since taking the passive role in sex was viewed negatively and associated with women. The due penalty for the men’s failure to honor God was that they were ironically shamed in their culture. “Nature” (a secular term Paul borrowed from the culture) refers to social custom like when Paul writes that long hair in men is contrary to nature and shameful in 1 Corinthians 11:14.
Paul draws from the book of Wisdom in making his argument here, not Genesis.
Repent and follow the Jesus of the Bible. Not the straight, white cardboard cutout mockery of Jesus that you worship.
@@user-yx4ib7oh8v Romans 1:26~27
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions for even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman burn in their lust for one another men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which is due.
The natural function of men and women is seen in Genesis Adam and Eve in marriage together
There's not one Bible verse supporting homosexuality his only Bible verses condemning homosexuality and it is nothing new for false teachers to twist it like you
@@saintbrian2852 "their" females, "the" males - it's talking about specific people, the idolators. "men in men" was far too common in Roman culture than can be explained by secs orientation - they were doing it for reasons other than being attracted to men.
The text only says that certain people were behaving indecently. traditionally this text had been used to condemn all non-reproductive secs acts even between husband and wife. for the last 70 years, we've been equally fallaciously using it to condemn all same-secs acts.
"Natural use" means man dominant/active/poking and women submissive/passive/poked. Learn your history before you misinterpret a 1st cent text. unlike today, a female getting oral secs from a male was considered contrary to natural use.
Genesis 2 is not about secs, it's about marriage, and is fully consistent with same-secs relationships. Where does it say that two men or two women cannot get married? That's made up. "It is not good for the human to be alone" and "for this reason the man [marries] his woman" apply equally well to same-secs relationship.
As for "homoxesuality", there is not a single verse that says it's wrong to lie with "the same secs", nor is there any discussion of same-secs attraction. There's an obsolete oddly worded prohibition probably against feminizing a male, a description of pagan excesses, and a word of uncertain meaning, none of which are said to be wrong because they're "the same secs". Get your facts straight.
@@user-yx4ib7oh8v Wrong.
“Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, concerning the coming of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah and our gathering together to Him, not to get shaken out of your mind or disturbed-either by a spirit or a word or a letter as if through us-as though the Day of the Lordhas come. Let no one deceive you in any way, for the Day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the one destined to be destroyed. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits in the Temple of God, proclaiming himself that he is God. Don’t you remember that when I was still with you I was telling you these things? And you know what now holds you back, for him to be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already operating; only there is one who holds back just now, until he is taken out of the way. Then the lawless one will be revealed. The Lord Yeshua will slay him with the breath of His mouth and wipe him out with the appearance of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is connected to the activity of satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with every kind of wicked deception toward those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God sends them a delusional force, to lead them to believe what is false, so that they may be judged-all those who did not believe the truth but delighted in wickedness.”
- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 TLV
This is an excellent explanation. Thanks.
For Biblical relevance you should be looking towards ancient Israelite/Jewish history as that is to whom the Mosaic law was given and whom Jesus Christ came from that culture. His explanation completely bypasses that which speaks volumes. You will not find any Rabi or historian who specializes in Jewish history who will support this.
For years Vines has been showing up with the same party trick: he has zero Biblical support for his argument so he bombards you with “research”.
This tactic to conflate and obfuscate is easily spotted by everyone except the naive.
@@The_Word_Is_The_Way He discusses the verses in other parts of the fuller teaching, of which this is just one portion which they decided to put on RUclips for free. This portion was just discussing 2 non-affirming theologians and their claims, which I think Matthew effectively refutes.
@@donj2222 If you think he “effectively refutes” them then you are exactly what he is catering to: naive and unlearned in the scripture and Israelite history.
I challenge you to find rabbinical sources that support Vines’s view. That is telling because he is essentially saying the Israelites (and today’s Jewish community) misunderstood their God and had it wrong for all these thousands of years. It’s shocking how you can fail to see the blatant gall and audacity of this position.
@@The_Word_Is_The_Way It was only a few hundred years ago that slavery was understood as being not compatible with being a faithful believer. Many US denominations split over this and the US Civil War was fought over it.
The rabbis were called Pharisees in the NT books and we see that Jesus disagreed with them on some things. I certainly do not think that the rabbis were infallible interpreters, but one should of course see what they thought.
@@donj2222 It didn’t take long at all for you to resort to conflating the topic with the introduction of slavery. Typical of your ilk. For the record, Paul addressed the relationship of master and slave in Ephesians 6:5-9.
Slavery being “acceptable in the church” is a product of the Roman Catholic Church. This should not be misconstrued with the belief of the first people of The Way who were slaughtered by Rome.
Jesus Christ was called Rabbi which simply means “teacher”. His objection to the pharisees was primarily rooted in their not practicing what they taught. The instructions were not flawed: it was the execution that was wrong. Recall Christ said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. His stance and view of the Tanakh remains flawless so you have to produce a better argument as to why we should bypass how Christ himself viewed the prophets and the history of Israel. I will remind you that disagreeing with them on their view of same sex behavior is not something you can cite because it doesn’t exist.
This brings into question a critical issue: Vines clearly doesn’t study Jewish law, culture, nor biblical Hebrew. Do you?
A lot of cherry picking you did. Here are other loving, committed adult gay relationships that existed in antiquity. They DID exist:
Theognis & Kurnos
Meleager & partner
Harmodius & Aristogeiton
Sacred Band of Thebes
Orestes & Pylades
Sappho & Damophyle
Plato & Dion
Philip & Pausanias
Alexander & Hephaestion
Cleomenes & Panteus
Crates & Polemo
Terence & Scipio
Julius Caesar & King Nicomedes
Marc Antony & Curio
Gracchus & Spouse
Callistratus & Afer
Nisus & Euryalus
Hadrian & Antinous
Septimius Severus & Plautianus
Heliogabalus & Hierocles
Antonius & Julius Calvaster
Bassianus & Hierocles
The video points out the true norm that marriages were generally hierarchal (dominant/submissive) to contrast those partnerships to today's gay marriage. I would say many of the ancient same-sex partnerships do not fit the description of what Paul condemns: exploitation, manstealing, kidnapping, pederasty, and minders of prostitutes.
@@ERK4CanadaHello, ERK4Canada. What do you think about this? I would agree more with that way of viewing things, if only those things were listed as sin; however, instead, the Bible condemns participators in homosexual relationships in general. Do you feel that the Bible doesn’t call out homosexuality in general?
When the Bible condemns this kind of relationship in general, it condemns all forms of it.
One problem with this video aside from the cherry-picking of certain relationships, is that he never addresses the scriptures that speak against it-which is the #1 reason why believers cannot stand behind it.
@@Journey_Aroundhe has a whole book on scripture backed reconciliation and interpretation of it. This is just a response to a specific debate on historical relevance of the claims of Preston Sprinkle.
Wow, as always, well done and keep doing the Lord's work !!
You are the salt & light bro. God and the angels rejoice you !!
Very thoroughly researched! One note, Eastern Orthodox Church at one time in the middle ages had something akin to same gender marriage called: Brother-Making. You neglected to talk about this in your book. Achilles and patroclus could have been bi from some povs as you stated that they also slept with woman as well as each other. From what i know, Ancient Greece was pretty ambivalent when it came to Queerness. Pederasty was also an issue as it is in a sense P3do and not Gay. Just wanted to mention. Not a hater like the conservatives.
As I've read some historians note, understanding ancient Greek behaviour in terms of modern categories like "gay" and "bi" doesn't work well.
Thank you Matthew on your hard work and research. I myself am a Seventh Day Adventist gay man and have struggled with my own sexuality and being Christian, let alone being Adventist. But I recently came across some thing where people are equating the LGBTQ+ movement to idolatry. As in early times most sexual deviance is related to idol worship, hence temple prostitution. Some may go to say the God chose and then separated Israelites to be different then those of their counter part peoples ( gentiles) such than to stipulate things that would make them different. Such worship, rituals, sacrifice, food, marriage and sexual behaviors. What would be your response to something like that? Historically all this would have been found in Gentile or non- monotheistic groups.
His quotes are as in "these things happened," which is clearly true. I don't see that one can shade that to mean that they were approved by Christians then or NTW now.
Does this mean you're against same sex relationships where both parties are of age but there is a power differential that both parties are happy with?
Matthew Vine's entire organization, identity, and financial support come by providing the cover of supposed scholars to those who would never accept any other conclusion anyway. N.T. Wright is a scholar with an established reputation who has far fewer ideological reasons to bend the research in his direction. A fair reading of history or the literature on Paul does not support Matthew Vine's premise. Honestly, it doesn't need to. Vine needs to stop pretending Paul would support modern same-sex marriage. He needs to admit, as some main-line churches have for a long time, that He just disagrees with Paul. The absurdity is playing all the games Vine feels the need to play, while he also ignores the vast majority of language and New Testament scholars. What else could Paul have possibly said to condemn homosexuality? What language that existed in his day is missing from Paul that would give the slightest hint he would agree with Vine's premise? He spells out the behavior in far more detail than most other sins he condemns. He clarifies that the 'love between a husband and wife is a reflection of Christ's love for the church." Your claim that modern homosexuality is different only further proves the point. Paul condemns every version of homosexuality known in his day (including different words for the different roles, including both men and women). To then say, "Well, he condemned every version he knew about, but he would love what we are doing," is a level of hubris that's almost embarrassing. Just say, in line with almost every Pauline scholar, Paul would likely condemn modern homosexuality, but he was not as informed as we are now. The vast majority of open and affirming churches explicitly say that Paul condemned homosexuality, but we know better now.
Paul condemned exploitation, pederasty, manstealing, using young boys as submissive prostitutes... that does not mean Paul condemned faithful same-sex partnerships
You are taking the bible, N T Wright and Preston Sprinkle out of context. Non are presenting these relationships as accepted by GOD.
Just because humans sin and engage in sinful relationships does not mean that such relationships are accepted by GOD.
GOD is clear in Scripture, these behaviors are NOT accepted by GOD. HIS view of relationships as marriage is male and female. It is explicitly affirmed in Scripture.
I pray that the Holy Spirit reveals HIMSELF to you and shows you HIS truth. GOD Bless!
You can be LGBT and Christian 👬
@Yoel Cohen hello there. I'm glad to see you again😃
@Yoel Cohen who is that?
@Yoel Cohen he and I share the same sense of humor
You can be gay and not LGBT.
@@kennytendo7255 that's not what gay means
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.(A) 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.(B). EXAMPLE THIS VIDEO
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
@@jfish032 It is a sad mix of comical and pathetic that a follower of Vines’ and his progay theology “reformation” has the gall to make such an accusation as “fallen from grace” against someone who doesn’t affirm same sex marriage.
Even today there are many places in the world where abandoned or widowed women are in a difficult situation so they often join forces in order to get through life - no homo, though.
No unclean thing will enter the gates of Heaven.
Lying cheating stealing murderers incest, i agree.
Buddy we’re all unclean, despicable sinners unable to save ourselves. Agree or disagree with the video that much is true
@@ETEZ5597 Incorrect. If you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, acknowledge your sins are sins, and make an honest effort to repent, you are clean and you will be accepted into the gates of Heaven. However, a homosexual that openly practices sins, unabashedly, will never be allowed into the gates of Heaven, for they are unclean.
@@creeperrobot6859 being regretful and remorseful doesn’t make you clean
@@ETEZ5597 Correct. And?
JOHN 3:19
KJ21
And this is the condemnation: that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for restoration, and for training in righteousness, so that the person belonging to God may be capable, fully equipped for every good deed.
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 TLV
If you are making the argument that the Bible authors were only speaking to culture at the time, then this goes against the Holy Spirit being inspiration for scripture.
You also are accusing the Most High of negligence for not specifically addressing this issue.
Neither view demonstrates a high esteem of scripture. You claim the position that you believe inerrancy of scripture but continuously demonstrate otherwise.
He’s not arguing that the biblical authors were only speaking to the culture at the time. He’s arguing that the object of their condemnation was the exploitative nature of the relationships, not that they were violating a divinely ordained gender complementarity. Whereas same-seks relations were emblematic of lustful excess and exploitation in the ancient world… loving, committed, equal-status relations in gay marriages today must be assessed differently.
The Bible is a book of general principles, not an encyclopedia. The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of elective abortion either.
@@michaeljefferson9747 You’re dishonest for deliberately misrepresenting my statement. I have Vines’s book “God And The Gay Christian” and he specifically said the authors were only speaking to the issue of their time. The significance is he makes it as though the scripture is the author's commentary and is not the product of divine inspiration. I specifically pointed out that view goes against the Holy Spirit being the inspiration for scripture.
Moreover, his argument and reasoning is imbecilic on the principle it completely bypasses Rabbinical teaching. What “Jesus” is he trying to promote who is completely independent of being a Jew, a descendent of Israelites in the Bible? Only if you don’t actually study Jewish culture and history does his argument bear the most remote sense of credibility. Not everyone is so naive and unlearned as he would like to presume.
The Reformation Cult NEVER cites any source of this kind and I can see why. He is essentially arguing the Israelites were wrong in their understanding of YHWH's commandments and outright condemnation of same sex unions. I dare you to say that to the Jewish community’s face!
Btw
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Clearly YHWH has a view of life in the womb which gies against the idea of the embryo “not being life”.
So god created humans 300k years ago, then hide 295 k years ago then he showed up to a small group of people and gave them the rules that are made for ALL humanity?
Doesbntr sound very godly , sounds rather a man made book from a perception of a smaller group of people.
It does matter whether it existed before. The bible's view couldn't be clearer.
No biblical author had a loving, committed equal-status relationship in view in any reference to same-sex behavior. The Bible condemns it because it was emblematic of excessive, self-seeking lust and exploitation-not because it violates a “divinely ordained gender complementarity.”
an obsolete prohibition against patriarchal norms (Lev 18/20), a description of pagan excesses (Rom 1), a word of unknown meaning (1 Cor 6/1 Tim 1), and justification of marriage (Gen 2) hardly constitute a claim that it "couldn't be clearer".
@@user-yx4ib7oh8v According to your logic, scripture is nothing more than the commentary of Israelite men and not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
If your view of the Levitical prohibitions of homosexuality is accurate, then you are essentially accusing The Most High of gross negligence for not addressing such a critical issue. You accuse the Israelites of not comprehending their own God.
There is far more to be said, but I think you get the point.
Are you sure this is the “logic” you want to hang your hat on?
No, today's Bible are not clear. Especially, when it's readers read the Bible as if they're reading it using a Webster's dictionary.
@@The_Word_Is_The_Way The Bible is a man made book with man made wisdom and man made fallacies.
I have to admit, I got confused there. Some of those ancient same-sex relationships sounded like today's modern same-sex relationships that are liberated (outside of marriage or cohabiting and engaging in sexual activity monogamously).
I'm confused because, yes we can argue that there wasn't a legally binding marriage arrangement for where same-sex partners can be equals back in those days, we cannot shake away the notion that some of them might have been actually truly in love but couldn't get married because there was no provision in their law to allow for equal same-sex marriages, but only for pederastic relationships.
So that being said, I am kinda lost to what the argument is here.
Are we arguing that the Bible through Paul in his letters, condemned same-sex relationships altogether whether they were pederastic or not, whether they were married or not?
Or are we arguing that Paul only condemns same-sex relationships that are OUTSIDE of a legally binding, and loving marriage, even when same-sex partners were in love (the same way that liberated practices of heterosexual partners who are cohabiting and committing premarital sex are also condemened as sexual immorality even if they are in love and committed to each other)
Also I am confused about pederasic relationships as you would say, does pederastic refer exclusively to abusive age-gapped relationships? because in 11:00 of the video, the relationship described to me sounds pedophillic, it happens until today where for example an 17-year old is in a relationship with an 18-year old, there is some technicalities there in terms of pedophillia, but you cannot take away the fact that they could really be in love with each other and want to pursue a loving relationship. Does the age gap disqualify the relationship no matter how small?
@@larionknight7545 Matthew Vines and his ilk are among the greatest heretics to emerge in a generation.
What he is arguing is the scripture only speaks to pederastic and idolatrous same sex unions and the Biblical authors had no concept of “monogamous, loving same sex relationships”.
This is a terrible argument because it eliminates the Holy Spirit as inspiration for scripture and renders God negligent for not addressing the issue.
This video is a single part of a full series which does address your questions.
Because some things exist in the biblical age does not mean the God approved it.
Man worship idols back then, as they do today but it doesn't mean the God approves it.
*
Bottom Line:
You were born in this world because a man and a woman had sex.
It's unnatural for a men to have sex with men and woman with woman.
*
That is why God sent fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
(Genesis 19:24)
Sex-difference isn’t required in marriage. Marriages don’t have to be open to procreation in order to be moral. That’s why infertile opposite-sex couples still have valid marriages.
The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. All of the men of the city (obviously not all gay since that’s not how sexual orientation works) attempted to (but did not) gang-rayp angels. That’s the only form of same-sêks behavior described. The seks-similarity was only relevant to the story because same-seks rayp was a common tactic of aggression and humiliation in the ancient world. The story makes no reference to a “divinely ordained gender complementarity.” In 20 references to Sodom in the rest of Scripture, none reference same-seks behavior as even part of Sodom’s sin.
A lot of people commenting are treading on dangerous ground. Many people will twist the word of god to suit their beliefs. I would suggest that everyone should actually pick up the bible and read it for yourself. Honestly draw your own conclusions. Being politically correct isn't necessarily what is taught in the bible. You can't blatantly defy the word of god daily and say you are an upstanding member of the christian community.
Modern Bibles are poorly translated, and most people are unaware of the cultural background of ancient patriarchal societies and the problems it caused. This is a complex issue and "drawing your own conclusions" without the necessary historical and scientific data easily becomes jumping to conclusions.
Part of the issue is picking up a modern day translation of the Bible and saying it’s is word for word what was originally written. It isn’t and never will be because a lot of the words didn’t have exact translations. If I was to write a sentence in google translate and change through 4 different languages and then back to English it wouldn’t say word for word the original sentence. Drawing your own conclusions has to be the art of studying the Bible. God wants our heart and to love one another as Jesus would have. We are all sinners worthy of death.
Don’t you also have to understand the context and cultural of when those scriptures were made?
(Tries to make Biblical argument for homosexuality)
(Doesn't quote the Bible)
You know the person presenting this is being deceptive when they choose to use sources other than the Bible to make a Biblical argument. Only the word of God (the Bible) matters if you are a Christian.
He's not putting forth a full argument for homosexuality, he's just refuting some of the arguments against it. The arguments he's debunking have to do with extra-biblical sources, so he's using those as well. Because the cultural context matters when interpreting scripture.
@gizelle1 he made the biblical argument first 11 years ago only focuses on the Bible and more specifically the passages relating to homosexuality.
This video is part of a full series, and this part of the series is setting the backdrop for the culture and world in which the New Testament was written. Other modules of the course dig deep into the Scriptures
May God open your eyes to the truth. Force fitting your ideology will not change the bible as the bible is already correct and consistent.
Have you actually engaged with any of the information and research on this topic or are you just virtue signaling?
Jesus said what makes marriage. He said it's between a man and a woman so they can become one flesh. You can't go against Jesus period. Those are his rules for a marriage. Homosexuality existed back then. It's mentioned in the Bible. So if Jesus was OK with it,he would had said when two people get married,they become one flesh. That implies anyone that loves another person regardless of the sex,can get married. But he didn't say that. Jesus made it clear. Example: The state gives a laws for getting a driver's license. It says in order to get it,you must be at least 17 years old and have good vision. Now you show up to the facility and you barely can see and you are 13 years old and say can I take the test to get my driver's license. What do you think that anwser is gonna be? According to Jesus,gay people are not married period. Case closed.
Pick up your bible again. The only times Jesus spoke on marriage were not in reference to same sex partnerships, but to the permanent, mystical union of a man and woman, responding to a question of whether a man may just divorce his wife for any reason. “Let not man separate” what god has united. The “one flesh” argument refers to a mystical transfiguration between two people, not to whether or not their genitals “fit” according to reproductive design. While Jesus alludes to “one flesh” in the sense of heterosexual marriage, he does not do so while condemning homosexual unions, but adultery. To say that Christ himself condemned homosexuals is to put words in his mouth, which is sin.
@@mothbyte98 ,you are a liar. That's exactly what he said. Nowhere does Jesus say when two people that love each other will become one flesh. Jesus always speaks of the man and woman when he talks about marriage. Jesus made is clear. Homosexuals actually got married in the Biblical times but the Bible never speaks of it. Why is that? Because the Biblical God forbidded gay marriage. You can't name one servant of God in the Bible that was gay. The Bible only speaks of homosexuals as sinners. Where are the homosexuals heroes in the Bible? Jesus Christ said himself when a man and woman get married they become one flesh. So explain how to fit two women or two men in there? You can't. Example: if I know how how travel to other dimensions and you ask me how to do it and OK , I'll tell you. You need to go two the grand canyon at midnight and make a circle out gold, silver, and bronze and stand completely still and say, I'm ready. Now you do everything right but you replace the gold with copper. You try it and you go absolutely nowhere. Then you say it didn't work, I'm just a liar. Now,you didn't do what I told you. I gave you the instructions but for whatever reason you replaced the gold with copper. Who made the mistake here? You can't change the rules to fit your lifestyle. Jesus made it clear what makes a marriage and it isn't two men nor two women period.
@@mothbyte98 ,and I issue you a challenge. Show chapter and verse where Jesus used the word people instead of man and woman when he talked about marriage. Also, Jesus said he was married to his church. Jesus called the church his wife. Question:why didn't Jesus call the church his husband? Because two men can't get married. I'll tell you like I told me gay sister,you can't change the Bible to fit your lifestyle. Case closed.
@@stevemclendsy3911 you are not to judge others. You don’t know how serious these topics are by how you are speaking. You are not better than anyone who you spew hate on.
@@DeGuzman2392 ,but Jesus is. He said what he said and you nor I can't change that. You simply can't change Jesus words to fit your lifestyle. I can't do it and you can't do it.
The guy looks and talks like he is GAY himself. Could this be a self-hater of his own nature?
Besides. What people do NOT understand is "marriage" in the ancient word was more about COVENANT CONTRACT than "sex". And the woman was "given" as part of the "property" given in the contract [what in contracts is called "consideration". Sex could only occur within "Covenant" It was only A PART of that CONTRACT.
"Marriage" is RARELY (only 4 times) even mentioned in the Old Testament AT ALL.
And each time the Male "takes" the female "in" COVENANT [Marriage]. He "obtains" property. Thou shall not covet they neighbours property included his "wife" along with his donkey, and maid servant and man servant, or anyTHING that is (belongs to) they neighbour.
In FACT there "is" indeed a verse of Scripture in the Old Testament .. that illustrates that the "marriage COVENANT contract "and the opposite-gender sex were TWO DIFFRENT THINGS. For in that verse a MAN "married" another MAN! Surprised? Well CHECK for YOURSELF, but get a LITERAL Translation to get as close to what came out of GOD's mouth as possible in that verse. This is found in "Youngs LITERAL Version" [YLT] :
YLT 1Ki 3:1 . And SOLOMON [MAN] *joineth in MARRIAGE with* Pharaoh [another MAN] KING [MAN] of Egypt...
This portion of the verse illustrates that in Ancient Times "The Marriage "itself" was a COVENANT CONTRACT" between to Parties. of which the female was part of the contract "consideration" expressed in the 2nd part of the verse:
.....and TAKETH (obtained) the daughter of Pharaoh, and bringeth her in unto the city of David, till he completeth to build his own house, and the house of Jehovah, and the wall of Jerusalem round about.
You see kids, Consideration means each side of a contract gives something of value. If one person gives nothing, a court won't enforce the DEAL. This principle represents the mutual assent of the parties involved in the contract.
Thus Marriage is a "contractual commitment" of "two parties" in this Biblical Verse by GOD, the two "parties" of the contract are BOTH MEN!!!
I'm sure you NEVER hear this before, because these are things GOD has to show one in SCRIPTURE.
Thus "they were "marrying" ONLY pertains to the "male" partner and "given in marriage" only pertains to the female partner. But the MARRIAGE itself is a Committed Contract and YES, Homosexual [same gender sexual peoples] CAN "marry" with this definition. It has to be "married (male) and given in marriage" to emphasize a "heterosexual" CONTRACT.
So When we examine what GOD wants and sees, we MUST USE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURAL TEXT as our STAR WITNESS. If NOT you will get it WRONG every time because GOD's WORD is as ALIVE as HE, and it will only OPEN TO YOU, when your intent and heart is PURE.
We do NOT know the SPIRITUAL condition of our English Translated Bibles which have been COPIED from EACH OTHER and spread around the world "as" god!
GOD is a COVENANT GOD. This sets him APART from the false "heterosexual gods" heterosexual men created in Ancient times in their OWN image [projecting Earth to Heaven]
And this is the "fundamental" reason WHY the doctrine on Homosexuality has been a Traditional "Perversion" of what GOD SAID in it's PURE state.
Example:
Thou shall not lie with man as with a woman; it is abomination
IS A BIG FAT LIE!!! WHY? because there is NO word "as with" or ANY such comparison language in the ORIGINAL SCROLLS which GOD BREATHED and dictated to MOSES.
Thus a Doctrine "taught" using that verse ALSO becomes a BIG FAT LIE! And PEOPLE LOVE IT!!! Satan TOO!!!
And to keep reciting that verse is "practising SIN" because GOD COMMANDED
in THE LAW "Do not ADD to nor DELETE from MY WORDS!!!
DUETERONOMY 4:2 and DEUTERONOMY 12:32
AND in HIS Book of Wisdom given to Humanity
Proverbs 30:5-6
GOD MEANT THAT!!!! You who USE this ALTERED verse to condemn COVENANT LOVE BOND RELATIONSHIP [Marriage] are GOING TO HELL for it too! Who SAYS?
CHRIST HIMSELF said in Mathew 25: 41-46...and these are CLEARLY good anti-homosexuality CHRISTIANS!!!! That means YOU!!!!
"Depart from ME you who do "LAWLESSNESS" [Tell LIES on GOD, SPREAD LIES against thy Neighbour's sexuality to glorify your own, AND "ADD" to and "DELETE" GOD BREATHED WORDS, when JESUS taught us to LIVE by "EVERY WORD" in YOUR BIBLE?.....NO!
"EVERY WORD: That Proceeds out of the Mouth of GOD. And in SCRIPTURE, not ONE WORD was breathed in ENGLISH, so one must ALWAYS go back to the BREATHED WORD. NO Translation "of" SCIPTURE is SCIPTURE ITESELF for it is "Fallible" and has "ERRORS" and has practised SIN!!!
NOW that I have came unto you by CHRIST who sent me, AND you do NOT become a BEREAN and go behind me and SEE for yourselves, then your SIN SHALL REMAIN.
For NO Child of GOD would EVER Turn AWAY from TRUTH for JESUS said HE IS TRUTH and thus would be turning AWAY from JESUS who will declare at Judgment "I NEVER KNEW (has spiritual intercourse with) YOU
SO REPENT HARD HEADS and STIFF NECKED Christians [like the Israelites who for-shadowed you]. STOP putting you limited carnal sensibility EMOTIONS before HARD CORE "PURE" SCRIPTURE SCROLLS on this doctrine matter. If you can by GRACE of GOD manage that on THIS matter, It will open an entire NEW Revelation IN SCRIPTURE on OTHER matters as well, for you would have PAST an essential TEST, for SCRIPTURE to OPEN unto YOU as it has Me, and that on ANY MATTER dear to you.! Until then, SCRIPTURE is CLOSED!!! And you are stuck with "traditions of MEN" which will end you up in HELL "even though you have done such good works "in the name of cheeseus" aka "Jesus"
😇🔥😇
If there were no sexual relationships between women and women then why does the bible refer to this kind of thing happening?
There were relationships between women and women, but not as much is known about them because men wrote the history.
No, the Bible makes no reference to women with women. It was men who had the power to abuse, hence the focus was on them.
@@MusicalRaichu read it again. Yes it does
@@noahfletcher3019 Where? What did I miss?
@@MusicalRaichu In Romans where Paul talks about men lying with men. I'm guessing you're going to do this thing where you ignore the most obvious reading of that passage for an alternative one with the aid of many progressive scholars. If that's what you're going to do just let me know now so I can stop replying. I have had this discussion many times and I've found that both sides have digged their heals in on this. Let's agree to disagree because I'm not really prepared to push through the part where you pretend to not see what the rest of us see. Let me know please.
@@noahfletcher3019 Oh you mean where it says "their (the idolaters') females exchanged the natural use for the unnatural"? No, it doesn't say women with women explicitly.
Probably the idolaters' females were taking the active role with male idolaters. For example, one theory is that female priestesses penetrated galli (cast-rated male idolaters). Paul might have wanted to avoid explicit language so put it in roundabout terms. Since he didn't shy from saying "males with males", it's unlikely he would've avoided "females with females" if that was his concern.
Sorry I take the text literally for what it says. Seems you're pretending to see something that's simply not there. The text isn't even relevant. I've known a few gay men and not a single word in Paul's description bears any resemblance to any of them. It's obviously about something else with less than superficial similarity and you're way out of line raising it in this discussion.
Strange how your research agrees with your unbiblical view. Almost like you wanted it to match your lifestyle
You're trying to thread a needle here, but ultimately only proving that in a world where slave-rape and the rape and coercion of minorities-- while not celebrated, was allowed--- that the idea of same-sex marriage was still ridiculous. In terms of co-equal sexual relationships though, you've missed the mystery cults, who's sexual practices were paraded once in a while through the streets of Athens, and several Greek military scenarios where soldiers were expected to partner in all things, including sexual relationship. The second had been done away with by the first century, as had pederasty. But these scenarios were discussed and remembered at length. Usually as tragic tales of the past.
It doesn't make sense that if Paul's primary concern was power dynamics or if he was alluding to slave rape, why he would also condemn lesbian relationships in Romans 1:26.
@@nlaw5268 We can only guess Paul's specific concern, only his overall ethic of love (Rom 13.8-10). We don't know what male bedder means, but "gay" fits none of the known constraints and abuzing enslaved boys fits all of them. But Rom 1.26-17 with it's weaker language "shameful, unseemly" is about something else.
Rom 1.26 says, "their (the male idolaters') females" engaged in unconventional behaviour. The original listeners would have likely taken it as women taking the active role with men, which is why it was shameful. It's only because modern categories are different that you jump to women with women.
It doesn't quite "condemn", it refers to socially unacceptable behaviour. The passage as a whole is not entirely true since it contradicts Rom 2.14-15. In fact, the whole point is not to use it to condemn anyone, because then you fall into Paul's trap in Rom 2.1, the rhetorical goal here.
Yes it did
I love how the Bible never speaks on lesbian issues. 🤦🏼♂️ y’all crazy you Can be gay and love Christ. Christ forgives all sin.
Read the Talmud of Jmmanuel if you want a good laugh. They say it is the original book of Mathew.
6. "and if two men bed down with each other, then they shall be punished, for those fallible are unworthy of life and its laws and behave heretically; thus they shall also be castrated, expelled and banished before the people."
7. "If, however, two women bed down with one another, they shall not be punished, because they do not violate life and its laws, since they are not inseminating but are bearing."
NO GOD PUT STRICT RULES ON WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE AS FAR AS SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP NOT A PATRIARCHY!!
Word salad. Scripture is clear
“So when we’re talking today about life-long, monogamous, equal-status same-sex relationships, we’re talking about something categorically different than anything we find in the biblical world”.
Yet, all the dramatic dynamics of relationships referenced reflect/mirror the drama of same-sex relationships today (I.e., the sex, the lust, the altering, etc.) Quite telling.
I think you'll find that said "dramatic dynamics" occur in opposite-secs relationships as well. We'd need hard statistic to know If they're more common in same-secs relationships. But if they are, could it be because our false teaching has alienated a whole group of people from the gospel and its redeeming effects?
I think your lacking on critical thinking skills sir
@@blvse4118 “Critical thinking means making reasoned judgments that are logical and well-thought out. It is a way of thinking in which you don't simply accept all arguments and conclusions you are exposed to but rather have an attitude involving questioning such arguments and conclusions. It requires wanting to see what evidence is involved to support a particular argument or conclusion.” That’s exactly what you get from my observation.
Now, what men are secretly hoping for is that the supposed “insufficiency” of Scripture of will excuse them from accountability to God’s holy ordinances. It is no more than a camouflaged antinomianism. “God has spoken,” as put by Stott. And all history turns on that axis!
@@KRashad Point taken, although I don’t think that here or the body of Vines’ work really argues that grace releases us from following past ordinances. Rather, he seems to argue that those ordinances are misinterpreted and misapplied. That’s up for debate, of course.
Even so, what if God’s Spirit continues to speak by the example of love expressed by same-sex couples in order to further unfold His scripture and revelation?
What if, notwithstanding past ordinances, God permits same-sex relationships as He gradually permitted the eating of meat through various revelations-ultimately erasing the distinction between clean and unclean in light of higher ethics?
What if God ordains acts undertaken as an expression of love for people, even expressions of same-sex love, just as Jesus ordained activity that clearly ran afoul of ordinances clearly established by the text of scripture-albeit, not the spirit of the scriptures? The example of Jesus and his disciples working on Shabbat to feed themselves or Jesus working on Shabbat to heal someone immediately come to mind.
Regardless, hinging one’s perspective only on scripture (especially a strict textualist interpretation of it) is insufficient for discerning the will of God, let alone developing a vibrant communal life (relationship) with God. We must always be open to what God is revealing, as much as to what has been revealed, and filter our understanding through the prism of love. Love is the beginning and the end of all things.
@@KRashad Matthew’s argument in this particular video is regarding the hierarchical nature of same-sex relationships and how there are no ancient examples of a loving, committed, equal-status same-sex relationship. Thinking critically, if you wanted to logically undermine his conclusion, you would need to cite one ancient example of such a relationship. But you did not.
You appear to concede that there are some loving, committed, equal-status relationships today, but then change the subject to arguing without evidence that you perceive higher rates of “drama” in modern same-sex relationships, including lustfulness, sex, and altering (whatever that means). And then you fail to explain the relevance that has to this video or anything else.
Even if true, isn’t that what one would expect when an entire group of people has been rejected and excluded from legal marriage, family, and faith communities for decades? How is that any different from a racist randomly bringing up statistics about crime in the black community? Why are you victim-blaming?