John Kesler

I think the fact that Lot offers his virgin daughters as a substitute, and specifically mentions their virginity, strongly suggests that the Sodomites' interest in Lot's guests was sexual in nature. The newest edition of the JPS translates Genesis 19:6 (verse 5 in this version) as, "...Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them."

Ebonmuse

That's an interesting point. However, if it's homosexuality that was the specific sin, why would Lot offer his daughters to them? A group of homosexual rapists, if that's what they were, would not have been interested in women. Perhaps Lot should have offered himself to the mob instead?

TomboyMom

For a new testament verse (most Christians ignore virtually all of the old testament, although some fundamentalists retain some of the weirder parts of Genesis), I like this one from Mathew 10:

Benni72

Being straight himself, Lot may have thought that it doesn't make much difference whether you are having anal sex with a man or a woman. Still, the Sodomites rejected his offer.

Craigart14

Someone should have explained this to Origen before he castrated himself.

Craig

Craigart14

No. Jesus stated in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:-17-20 that he would not change the law, even going so far as to say that one must be better at observing the law than the Pharisees (known far and wide as sticklers for obeying the law) in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. Later, the Pharisees catch him breaking the law when he and his disciples do not wash their hands before eating, and Jesus tells the crowd that nothing that goes into a man can defile him. The same sequence, aside from the fact that the great sermon is preached while sitting in a boat instead of standing on a mountainside, occurs in Mark, and in Mark 18-19, Jesus repeats the instruction to his disciples, after which Mark comments, "Thus he declared all foods clean." So Jesus declared that the law would not be changed until "heaven and earth" have passed away, until all was accomplished, but then made sweeping changes when he was challenged. The message seems to be that he wouldn't change the law until someone caught him breaking it. Assuming he was alive when he "declared all foods clean," it wasn't his death that changed the law.

Also, the instruction to turn the other cheek was not given only to the disciples as they were going forth to preach. It is part of the Sermon on the Mount, which in Matthew is preached to a large crowd (5:38-39).

Personally, I wish Christians would remember the instructions in Matthew 6 about praying in secret and not making a show of their religion. Seems easy enough, doesn't it?

Craig

Chris Weimer

I'm going to have to side with the Christians on this one, Craigart. I'll explain below/

All of Jesus' statements concerning the upholding of the entire Law have a qaulifying phrase with it. For the destruction of the Law, he said he "came not to destroy, but to fulfill." He's fulfilling the Law, not destroying it. A retirement, if you will. For the "one iota nor one tittle may pass away" still have the qualifying phrase "until all becomes."

This is one of Matthew's main themes throughout the gospel.

For Jesus, it's not the individual points of the Law that are important; it's the "weightier matters...judgment, mercy, and faith." This much is consistent with Matthew's overall ethology.

Chris

Helpmabob

Hi TomboyMom - Verses in Matthew 10:34,35 are not to be ignored by christians:

Jesus knows that entry to the kingdom is exclusively for those that follow Him. It will not be good enough to say for example 'my father loved God sincerely, therefore I will be okay'. On earth, children may look after their parents as they grow old. But when it comes to judgement, we must give account of ourselves alone. Some turn to God whilst there is time here on earth, some don't - causing division in families.

Craigart14

Can't buy it, Chris. Remember, Liviu said in his post that the law was abolished with Jesus' death. However, according to Mark, Jesus made sweeping changes in the law while he was alive, and he made those changes just a few verses after stating clearly that the law would not change until all was accomplished. What was accomplished in the intervening verses? Certainly not anything that could be considered "all." Sure, Jesus says in one place (I forget where, and don't have my Bible handy) that "the greatest of these is love," but he moves the goal posts every time the Pharisees pin him down. And if the spirit of the law matters more than the letter, why did Jesus emphasize the "jots" and "tittles"? Face it. Jesus changed the law before the conditions in the qualifying phrases were met.

Craig

John Kesler

As Genesis 19:7 indicates, the Sodomites refused the substitution of Lot's daughters.

That wasn't part of the script. Lot had to impregnate his daughters to produce the Ammonites and Moabites.