James Madison

Well defunct how though is the issue and question. Is the law entirely defunct in everyway imagineable as to lead to the conclusion it should never be followed? Paul says eternal life is not obtained by adherence to the law but I do not think he goes so far as to say it is defunct in such a way nobody should adhere to it.

The law, in which we are talking about the Jewish Torah and as conveyed in the books of the prophets, is scripture. Paul is most certainly talking about theses texts and confirms 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. The NT was not in existence at the time and did not consitute as "scripture". By process of elimination then Paul is talking about the Torah and the books of the prophets. ALL of them are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in rigtheousness. Can they grant you eternal life according to Paul? No but since they are guides for right living then adhering to them will result in living right.

Diogenes the Cynic

The Greek words translated as "natural" and "unnatural" are phusin and para phusin. Phusis is a word which describes observable characterics or behavior. It does not connote any innate sense of how things ae supposed to be, it only describes how they are. Paul also says, for instance, that it is phusin for men to have short hair and for Jews to follow the law.

In the Romans passage, para phusin would be better translated as "uncharacteristic" than "unnatural." They became unlike their normal selves, but the Greek does not carry an implication of "unnatural" in the sense that they were doing anything contrary to some inherent purpose.

James Madison

Diogenes:

Yeah this is possible and as I previously stated, I need to do more research on the word as it appears in Greek and its possible meanings. There is the Greek word phusikos foo-see-kos' "physical" and then there is, as you said, phusis foo'-sis . A preliminary search indicates the two words have different meanings.

Thanks for the input though.

EthnAlln

My guess is that these are pure "Baptists," not Southern Baptists (SBC), which is the largest of all Protestant denominations in the US today (and one of the few that are still growing). Southern Baptists split off before the Civil War and never came back again, unlike Southern Methodists. Oddly, the SBC doesn't seem to be at all embarrassed that it owes its origins to the fact that it defended slavery. (But then, are Anglicans at all embarrassed that they owe their origins to the desire of a horrible despot to get a divorce? Let bygones be bygones.) One would think that for consistency, they would at least soft-pedal that old chestnut that "God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." But they don't.

EthnAlln

As I said, I'm rather sure that the "use" of a woman referred to her use by a male, and "unnatural" meant oral or anal sex. The word "para" often means "from" when used with people. Marcus Aurelius begins his meditations with a long list of people "from" ("para") whom he got his various traits of character, and Xenophon says "hostis d'aphiknoito ton para Basileos pros auton" ("whenever anyone came to him of those from the King"). Possibly "para phusin" means "away from nature", and so "unnatural".

Incidentally, Paul uses the word "theleia" ("female," related to the word for nipple) instead of "gynaika" ("woman"), in this passage. One can't judge across languages (at least, I can't), but it sounds to a foreigner (me) as if he is referring to women by a body part. The phrase about men is "arsenes en arsesin" ("males in males"). As someone pointed out above, "arsenokoite" means "coitus with a male". In ancient Greece there were class distinctions between men who were "tops" and men who were "bottoms" in this act.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not sure if you meant to imply this, but just for the record, there is no relationship between the Greek word koites and the Latin coitus (from co itus -- "coming together"). The Greek koites means "bed." As used in some vulgar compounds it basically translates to "bedder," but it only describes the penetrative partner, not the passive. Arsenokoites woukd be literally "male-bedder," but it probably only referred to the partner doing the penetrating. It's hard to know for sure because the word is mostly found on vice lists which give little context. The most likely meaning in my opinion (after having studied pretty much everything I can and tracking down every extant attestation I can find) is that it referred to the use of young male prostitutes (most of whom would have been slaves). My choice for translation would be "boy-fucker" or more politely "pederast."

Gamera

This argument fails since the Law requires such things as avoiding eating shellfish, which Paul rejects. There is no doubt he rejected the Law, period. All of it. Just as Jesus did. Thus they rejected the anti-homosexual provisions, which are no different from the anti-shell fish provision. The Law is all one.

Matthew 15:11 - not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

1 Corinthians 8:8 - Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.

Colossians 2:16 - Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.

Gamera

[QUOTE=noah]I do. I just don't know what you mean.

No there is the Law and the prophets. Ezekiel has nothing to do with the Law, neither does Amos, etc.

yeah, we all know this hobby horse of yours. Listen carefully: I'm not interested in the Old Testament, only the New Testament. And the NT rejects the Law. Does that make it clearer for you.

Matthew 22:40 - On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." See: two things -- the Law and the prophets. Not one. Two.

Well read the NT and you'll get it.

Nope, I'm contending his writings are inspired by God, just like the OT authors were in a different time for a different purpose. Hence the law and hence it's abolition.

Fine. The point is I agree with Paul. So we have different texts and you can stop riding your hobbyhorse.

We can. We agree on the gospel, which is all that counts.

Sorry, I trust him. As do 1 billion Christians. That's what makes us Christians and you Jewish. Nothing wrong with that.

noah

I love the hobbyhorse charge.

First it evinces a frustration born of an (obvious) inability to defend your position.

Second, give me a break? It's you Christians who come prancing in here (and elsewhere) touting the fact that you've all been given a pass on your God's laws. You entered this thread saying it. The same with the other two threads we were on.
You act as though every time someone challenges you on your biblical nonsense, nonsense you repeat over and over again, that the person who challenges it is on some obsessive kick. Get with the program pal. You want to pump the B.S. don't act surprised or irritated if someone finally pumps it right back at you.

I'm sick of Christians wandering around here and elsewhere spouting their B.S. and I'm certainly not going to act as though I should listen to it and take it for granted. That's aiding and abetting a lie.


[QUOTE=Gamera][QUOTE=noah]

Of course you know what I mean. All scripture includes your God's laws. All scripture means you have to obey your God's perfect and eternal laws. Simple no?

Too funny. The prophets were spokesmen for your god. They delivered the Law to the people. Ever heard of a guy named Moses? Ever heard of Mosaic Law?

Do you suppose one day you might actually read the bible Gamera?


Ezekiel has nothing to do with the Law? Too funny.

Ezekiel 11:20 Ezekiel 37:24 Please note here that being Messiah means you obey that your God's laws. What was that about Jesus fulfilling your God's laws?

Ezekiel 18:5 Too funny. This one ranks right up there with your teling me that Psa 119:152-160 and Psa 119:106-118 had nothing to do with your God's laws and that they actually said faith in Jesus was the key to salvation.

Actually, no it doesn't. Your New Testament contradicts you.
Mathew 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35)

Don't forget Matthew 19:17, REV 12:17, 1 John 2:4, Revelation 14:12 and Revelation 22:14.

How does this help your case? Of course there's two most important commandments. It's an ethics based religion with a god at the top.
What would be the point of faithful obeisance to the rest of your God's laws if you couldn't do these first two?

Second, where does it say the other 611 commandments of your God are erased, esp. as it relates to Mathew 5:17-20?


I have and I do. You threw your lot in with a renegade named Paul and forsook the eternal and perfect word of your god as you did so.

But they weren't in three places that we know of. Why do you believe he's inspired elsewhere if he admits he's uninspired three times?

Second why would your God, who doesn't change (Malachi 3:6) become the very thing he warned against?
(Deuteronomy 4:2) (Deuteronomy 12:32) Jeremiah 44:23
(Isa 29:13) (Psa 50:16-17)

Third, how do perfect and eternal laws become abolished?

Nope. We have the same texts and you are knowingly now and willingly throwing your lot in with a verifiable renegade and turning away from the perfect and eternal word of your Creator.

Did Paul create you?


Sure you do. Then you can go ahead and explain to me what the one Christian belief/doctrine is regarding:

The Trinity

Salvation

The Apostolic Succession

Baptism

Confession

Purgatory

Praying to the Virgin Mary


Sorry. I'm not Jewish.

1 billion mistakes don't equal a right.

Quasimofo

Noah you are priceless! Don't expect to get a reply to that last retort because that was a KO.

Hey Gamera...dig UP <edit>!



This graph saddens me, I mean 16%, come on! They need to do another graph showing what percent of that Christian 33% has actually read the Bible (closer to 0%) and what percent of Christians were born into Christian families (closer to 100%). If you're born a Christian you remain a Christian, unless of course you actually read the Bible, if you are smart enough TRUELY understand it all you will probably be smart enough to convert to Atheism.

This graph clearly shows that:

- 33% of all people are right
- 21% of all people are right
- 16% of all people are right
- 14% of all people are right
- 6% of all people are right
- 6% of all people are right
- 6% of all people are right
- 0.36% of all people are right
- 0.22% of all people are right