Thank you, but I already know that, the question was meant for the person who said it was scriptural.I can tell you. None. Nowhere does the bible support mental illness or perversion.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Thank you, but I already know that, the question was meant for the person who said it was scriptural.I can tell you. None. Nowhere does the bible support mental illness or perversion.
One verse alone answers your question or statement.
The love of Jonathan and David in the OT has been praised and admired for centuries. It is this one verse alone that I have not ever seen explained away or refuted -
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Sam. 1:26 NRSVue)
The church as always claimed that love was depicting the love of a wife for her husband. But, the word is plural, "women". The words "wife", "mother", "wives" and "mothers" were used in the Bible translations* many times prior to the writing of 2 Sam. 1:26; so if the verse spoke of love of wife or mother, it would clearly state it so, but it does not. In looking at the word "women" in a sexual context, the following is found in 1 Samuel -
"Now Eli was very old. He heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel and how they lay with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting." (1 Sam. 2:22 NRSVue)
"The priest answered David, 'I have no ordinary bread at hand, only holy bread—provided that the young men have kept themselves from women. David answered the priest, 'Indeed, women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?'” (1 Sam 21:4-5 NRSVue)
That shows clearly what is meant by "love of women" in 1 Sam. 1:26! The meaning is so clear, that Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation even added a fraudulent sentence to the verse in order to deflect the sure meaning of the authentic wording. Jerome added the sentence I am emphasizing in bold, as it is translated in the Douay -
"I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee." (2Sam 1:26 DRC)
* It is true that the Hebrew word as shown in the Strong's Dictionary "'ishshah (ish-shaw') n-f" can also be translated "female and "adulteress", but as noted above, no standard translation uses any other word in 2 Sam. 1:26, than "women".
The replies to this reply I've written, MUST explain this verse in its context;, don't sail around scattering arguments based on passages found from Genesis to Revelation. A single verse alone must be properly understood before it is placed in some type of "proof texting" arrangement.
There are two other observations in 1 Samuel that agree with 2 Sam. 1:26; that the love of Jonathan and David also had a sexual dimension to it, as is not uncommon among close male friendships. I am NOT saying that David or Jonathan were what people today call "gay", for both were married with offspring.
No, that is not a homosexual relationship nor does any of the scriptures you've listed indicate homosexual relationships.One verse alone answers your question or statement.
The love of Jonathan and David in the OT has been praised and admired for centuries. It is this one verse alone that I have not ever seen explained away or refuted -
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Sam. 1:26 NRSVue)
The church as always claimed that love was depicting the love of a wife for her husband. But, the word is plural, "women". The words "wife", "mother", "wives" and "mothers" were used in the Bible translations* many times prior to the writing of 2 Sam. 1:26; so if the verse spoke of love of wife or mother, it would clearly state it so, but it does not. In looking at the word "women" in a sexual context, the following is found in 1 Samuel -
"Now Eli was very old. He heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel and how they lay with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting." (1 Sam. 2:22 NRSVue)
"The priest answered David, 'I have no ordinary bread at hand, only holy bread—provided that the young men have kept themselves from women. David answered the priest, 'Indeed, women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?'” (1 Sam 21:4-5 NRSVue)
That shows clearly what is meant by "love of women" in 1 Sam. 1:26! The meaning is so clear, that Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation even added a fraudulent sentence to the verse in order to deflect the sure meaning of the authentic wording. Jerome added the sentence I am emphasizing in bold, as it is translated in the Douay -
"I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee." (2Sam 1:26 DRC)
* It is true that the Hebrew word as shown in the Strong's Dictionary "'ishshah (ish-shaw') n-f" can also be translated "female and "adulteress", but as noted above, no standard translation uses any other word in 2 Sam. 1:26, than "women".
The replies to this reply I've written, MUST explain this verse in its context;, don't sail around scattering arguments based on passages found from Genesis to Revelation. A single verse alone must be properly understood before it is placed in some type of "proof texting" arrangement.
There are two other observations in 1 Samuel that agree with 2 Sam. 1:26; that the love of Jonathan and David also had a sexual dimension to it, as is not uncommon among close male friendships. I am NOT saying that David or Jonathan were what people today call "gay", for both were married with offspring.
Well, E...X ...C...U...S...E me for attempting to support your position!Thank you, but I already know that, the question was meant for the person who said it was scriptural.
Christians aren't leading gays to Hell's fire.... Christians are repeating what is written in scripture thousands of years before the term Christian came into existence.It's SAD to see 'Christians' leading gays to Hell fire!
???????You claims has been refuted:
Amazon.com
www.amazon.com![]()
A Response to 'God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships' | Summit Ministries
In God and the Gay Christian, Matthew Vines, a 24-year-old Harvard graduate, uses Scripture as the basis for his assertion that "same-sex orientation is consistent with God's image." The mission of the Reformation Project, which Vines launched in 2013, is to change the church's stance on gay...www.summit.org
![]()
God and the Gay Christian: A Critical Review
On March 8, 2012, former Harvard student Matthew Vines gave a talk at a Methodist Church in Kansas titled, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality.” The ta...www.catholic.com
![]()
Assessing "God and the Gay Christian" - Part I • Joe Dallas
Why Bother? Today’s church is being asked – pressured, really – to follow the culture’s lead, and the culture is leading towards wholesale approval of homosexuality. So Matthew Vine’s new book God and the Gay Christian is a fresh, eloquent, and well publicized addition to the pressure. If Vines...joedallas.comYou searched for Assessing God and the Gay Christian • Joe Dallas
Real Answers. Real Hope.joedallas.comResponding to Pro-Gay Revisionist Talking Points - Christian Research Institute
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 38, number 05 (2015). The full text of this article in PDF format can be obtained by clicking here. For more information about the Christian Research Journal, click here. Not long ago, I attended the Reformation Project...www.equip.org
![]()
Matthew Vines’s Unbiblical Case for Same-Sex Relationships
A new attack on the reliability and perspicuity of Scripture was released.answersingenesis.org
![]()
God, the Gospel, and the Gay Challenge - A Response to Matthew Vines - AlbertMohler.com
Cultural commentary from a Biblical perspective Evangelical Christians in the United States now face an inevitable moment of decision. While Christians in other movements and in other nations facealbertmohler.com
Your wording is off - as if I actually believed there may have been scriptures such as that. And I see why/how I got that vibe.Well, E...X ...C...U...S...E me for attempting to support your position!
Unbelievable.Neither did God say:
"Thou shall not be homosexual"
Will you cherry-pick that one verse from the Law of Moses and ignore the rest of the chapter?Leviticus 20:13
No.Will you cherry-pick that one verse from the Law of Moses and ignore the rest of the chapter?
Do you agree with:
- The death penalty for any "sexual misconduct"?
- Polygamy, except in the case of a man marrying his wife's sister as a rival wife? (Leviticus 18:18) Compare vs 22
Where is the real abomination? - The context of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
/
I'm pointing to the context of the statements.Do you disagree that ....
Abomination Definition in the Bible
Again...Leviticus 18 and 20, for instance, list various sexual prohibitions and other moral laws, stating that engaging in these actions is an abomination before God.
I dont know.I'm pointing to the context of the statements.
The passage begins this way...
1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them:
I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 18:1-2
And ends this way...
You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy,
and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine. - Leviticus 20:26
These passages were given to the Israelites before they entered the Promised Land.
God wanted them to STOP these practices among them, which they were already doing.
So as to not be like those in the land they were going to.
These things were an abomination to God in this context. Nothing said prior. How come?
/
Who cares? He did say the man who lies with another man is to be put to death.Neither did God say:
"Thou shall not be homosexual"
Good. I'm glad that you are giving this some serious consideration. Thanks.I dont know.
It is possible that the Father , upon His selection of "His chosen" was specifying stricter guidelines?
Does the fact that Leviticus specifies things from God , do you feel that means it does not apply to anyone else? Like us today?
--- PARODY ---As if to say:
"The law we are no longer under calls it an abomination!" - LOL ???
Not true....There is very little in the NT about this issue. And questions about doctrinal bias in the translation work.
Right. - LOLNothing changed between old and new Covenants.
I'm not "singling out" anyone. This thread is about homosexuals. I will assume that you are gay.Christians aren't leading gays to Hell's fire.... Christians are repeating what is written in scripture thousands of years before the term Christian came into existence.
The Bible tells of all who do the works of unrighteousness which is against the will of God, their outcome. Nor it just apply to homosexuality, as you are singling out _ it applies ALSO to rapist, murderers, liars, adulterers, fornicators, sorcerers, those who practice bestiality and such.
AMEN brother!Homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders, pedophiles, and bestiality are not only scriptural abominations, but also, from a practical view, they are unnatural (incompatible plumbing) and immensely disgusting and perverse. The pervert-pushers on this forum who continually attempt to twist God's Word into a lie should think hard about the consequences for such activities.