That was my first thought. We were taught the odyssey in middle school and I remember that the sacredness of the guest was a recurring theme, either because the host honored the tradition or because they didn’t. I was also told that by and large all cultures were welcoming to guests because in a world without media travelers were basically the only source of news of what was going on elsewhere.
I feel like this may be a generally widespread cultural emphasis. I say that because growing up Catholic and Hispanic I always heard from the older people that people, when taking in strangers into their homes, should treat them as if they were Angels sent from God, because one never knows when someone is in the presence of an Angel. And there always has to be the highest of hospitality because one would not want to dishonor an Angel, bringing a curse upon the house of the host.
They were "inhospitable" in that they condemned those who advocate for God's moral law of one man one woman to grape. Those angels were there to judge the sexual ethics of the cities.
Another point is that Lot's objection was not to the sex, it was that the men (he didn't know yet they were angels) were under his protection. We clearly see what the concern was. And wasn't.
Another excellent explainer in the can. These creators who conflate and distort Scripture remind me of a spelling bee joke I like to use here & there. It goes like this. You are in the final round of a spelling bee and if you can spell the word “fascinate” and then use it in a complete sentence, you win. So, you say “F-A-S-C-I-N-A-T-E, fascinate.” But when you go to use it in a sentence, you say, “My sweater has nine buttons but I can only fasten eight.” Sounds right, but it is all kinds of wrong. There seems to be a bizarre conflation of the terms homosexuality, sodomy, and pedophilia. They are fundamentally different things, but I find that folks who think they are the same thing cannot tolerate a dictionary or the history behind the terms.
Its a shit channel that is highly censored ..😂 look up the ancient shamanic sex with animals man and angels for the eating of sperm, gathering of souls 😅 Tried to post said evidence but was blocked an removed .
@@lanamarie1624 Yet you somehow are capable only of making that assertion and completely unable to explain how. What qualifies you to make such a judgement? What training in biblical scholarship do you have?
@tchristianphoto The Bible consistently states through the old and new Testament that homosexuality and a man dressing like a woman a d vice versa is an abomination. It's also a Hebrew law, my guy. For example, Leviticus 20:13 reads “Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman it is an abomination." It says what it says. The guy doing this video is probably gay and like many other people, twist the Bible, making him able to do what he wants.
I always love how people like this "pastor" can obsess over homosexuality, yet NEVER talk about (say) Matthew 25:32-46 and our obligation to the poor, the sick, and the marginalized, when Christ (who never addressed the issue of homosexuality) considered concern for The Least of These so important that He declared that anyone who did not make that a priority were NOT doing for Him, and would go to their "eternal punishment". And yet people like this guy support politicians who consistently vote against bills that would benefit the poor and needy, and actively seek to cut social programs that are essential to them. Not to mention that a number of those politicians are adulterers, idolators, racists, and pathological liars, and "good Christians" like this totally ignore THOSE sins, and do not condemn THEM.
That's the tradition in which I was raised. If you are not charitable and doing the corporeal acts of mercy, you weren't doing Christianity right. Yes, many of the Epistles prioritize faith (in order to make sure it is not de-emphasized) but Jesus, in the Gospel of Matthew, points out that you are recognized by God even if you don't know him as long as you are doing what he requires. Many Protestants, unfortunately, in their reaction to the sale of indulgences, went with Sola Fide (which I have probably misspelled), that is Faith, as the defining characteristic forgetting that faith without works is dead and by their fruits you shall know them.
@@wartgindude. This totally ruins all the work that Christians have put into making me believe that works could never save me, that the only way was to accept Jesus as my personal savior. Kinda messing with one of my foundational existential crises.
@@NWPaul72 Sorry about that. Hope you come out on the other side okay. I've always thought that the overemphasis on "accepting Jesus as my personal savior" leads to ignoring or under-emphasizing stuff he actually said was important. Things like justice, mercy, charity, forgiveness, etc. Most people aren't going to sell all that they have, distribute the money to the poor and follow an itinerant preacher/rabbi/prophet/messiah but we are supposed to be at least trying to head in that direction.
Thank you for your breakdown of those verses Dan! It's sure good to hear a different perspective on this area. I just feel so confused on the whole issue, especially when it comes to reconciling certain religious beliefs with a contemporary understanding of sexuality. I don't know what to make of the testimonies of people who claim that they have been ‘delivered’ from homosexuality? I’ve stumbled across testimonies of people who say that after repenting from their former ‘lifestyles’ and accepting Jesus, they have been delivered from same-sex attraction. These stories don’t seem to resemble what we would associate with ‘conversion therapy’ in a traditional sense, but rather an experience that involves some purported supernatural intervention. Some even describe being released from ‘demonic oppression’ and will sometimes talk about various physiological changes in the body as part of their experience. I genuinely don’t know what to make of any of this. It’s absolutely clear that a lot of people have experienced their lives improving after finally coming to terms with their sexuality - no longer repressing an important part of who they are. I don’t deny this. But in some evangelical communities on RU-vid, you will similarly scroll through the comments and see tons of people saying that their lives are radically better after turning away from homosexuality and accepting Jesus. I genuinely don’t know what to make of this discrepancy between people who find liberation and elation when embracing their sexuality, and those who find the same so called ‘freedom’ rejecting it. What do you make of this? Quick disclaimer, I don’t mean to suggest that I understand or support any of this. I am genuinely curious as to how we might interpret such anecdotes. I don’t want to rely solely on explanations from evangelical echo-chambers where everyone views homosexuality as sin. I also don't want to deny anyone's experience - whether that be embracing their sexuality or supposedly turning away from it. Your honest thoughts on this would be most helpful
Please keep them coming Dan! There is so much ignorance in Christianity today and this type of discourse is our only hope of ever freeing mankind from this destructive belief system.
And how do we have the necessary discourse with these people when, like the stoners of Saint Stephen the martyr, they refuse to listen, cover their ears, and scream for our 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ deaths at the top of their lungs?
It just seems so very important to them. Why don't they spend that energy on something really important? Like the poor, the needy, the abused, the starving, the homeless. Perhaps they are the Sodomites.
4:00 On this point, myself and others disagree. While Lev 18 addresses impure acts, a close reading of the Hebrew indicates a non-conesntual relationship in 18:18. It is not that one man shall not lay with another; Rather, a man shall not lay within the bed of another man.
I mostly agree with you, but feel it is important to distinguish between very different uses of the word "nature." When speaking of a crime against nature people are relying on an older sense from ancient Greek (especially Stoic) philosophy, where Nature did not have to do with the natural environmental animal world but with a teleological understanding of the nature of man as a rational being.
I don't really think it is that misunderstood. From what Dan is saying, I get the impression his perspective is sort of like this: "Yes it was condemned but it was not God, its man's rules and the Bible is full of those and you just think it is God, chiefly because you want to". I think as much as others may not view the Bible as Dan does, I think Dan also misunderstands these people as well.
5:37 - a tip from someone who has converted social conservatives: "against nature" almost NEVER means it "doesn't occur" in nature. People use it to describe the _telos_ of nature: how things are "meant" to function. Disagreement is thus about what the "function" is, and what will thus invite catastrophe by deviating too far from the correct path. Moral intuition and folk wisdom (as in Greek, Jewish, Taoist, and Buddhist thought) often holds that Nature is built on a cosmic template, that "Order" has a certain structure, and that moral life is living in accordance with that intended order. An extreme example: Interspecies sex also exists "in nature," yet most would still say it's "against nature" for moral beings nonetheless.
Three legged frogs also exist in nature but it is unnatural because something went wrong. Instead of accepting and then celebrating the three legged frogs as being normal, why don’t we find out what’s in the water that gave the friggin frogs three legs?
@@yeboscrebo4451 Bingo. "It exists in nature" fails to address the concerns and convictions people actually have about the issues. Unfortunately, in many situations it's simply a satisfying, cheap dunk to score points with those who _already_ agree.
I think its just shorthand for "The way things normally and normatively operate". But applying normative values to animals is anthropomorphizing them a bit too far. I think it more appropriately applies to human beings under God.
@maklelan As a gay man I am constantly thrilled by your explanations. If all of this is the case then the passages before Ezekiel 16:1-49 are admonitions against Jerusalem for becoming like a prostitute even as God had helped Jerusalem. All of the language must then be about how Jerusalem acted with their neighbors. If I’m correct are the admonitions about actual child sacrifices Ezekiel 16:20 ? OR about economic exploitation?
I'm a homosexual christian, and trust only in my saviour Jesus Christ to redeem me from this decayed body of sin, which power was defeated by Him on the cross (Romans) and death, He defeated via his resurrection (also Romans). Seeing your explanatory of the real problems addressed on the scriptures refreshes my mind, because the church should really stop immediately to seek to destroy the faith of others. Sometimes it sadens my heart to tears that the community who should embrace those who are true believers with the same love that Jesus displayed on the cross, instead ejects them out and put them in a bond of either despair or to seeking false teachers that will embrace them with even more deception. Thank you for the clarity in your explanation! And thanks God for the Holy Spirit that gives discernment and helps those who belong to Him.
@@realcharlesmhall sorry, but you don't know me, you just have a piece of information about WHAT I am, not WHO I am. My identity is not defined by what this flesh is, but by Christ Jesus, who makes the believers righteousness in front of the Father. Don't quench me and my faith by pointing my sin, brother, I'm well aware of it. Point out The One who solved the problem of sin on the cross and the problem of death in resurrection! Peace to you and your family! In sincerity! ❤️
So, based on 4:00-5:20 it sounds, to me, as a queer person that per the laws of Leviticus.. there's not much wiggle room here. I've typically seen progressive Christians (including myself) argue this is referring to incest, cultic prostitution or rape...but that doesn't sound like what it's referring to. I'm glad I see the Bible neither as inerrant or inspired, because this verse js very much a stumbling block to me.
Pretty much. Saul Olyan and Thomas Römer (giants in the field of biblical criticism) convincingly argue that same-sex sexual-romantic expressions were not verifiably discouraged for most of Jewish history, ultimately only manifesting in the 6-5th century BCE Levitical laws prior to later renegotiations. These laws, however, are argued to be speaking _specifically_ about anal sex, and this act was an honor-shame taboo _specifically_ according to the Levitical school (not others!). So, even with a more critical reading, I'd argue there's enough footing to stress more redemptive theologies focusing on mutual love, mutual honor, and how sexuality has been conceptualized differently throughout the ages. Sources (if interested): - Römer, Thomas. "Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible." _Ahavah - Die Liebe Gottes Im Alten Testament._ Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. 2018. - Olyan, Saul. "Surpassing the Love of Women." _Authorizing Marriage?: Canon, Tradition, and Critique in the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions._ Princeton University Press. 2006. "'And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying down of a Woman': On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13." Journal of the History of Sexuality (Vol. 5, No. 2). University of Texas Press. 1994.
If you were to take the leviticus passages literally, it would condemn one act and that one act alone. It has nothing to do with women but only an act that can happen between two men.
To understand the ancient world of Leviticus is context. As we see sexual orientation today, orientation did not exist then. In the ancient world, it was frowned upon by being penetrated by another man. In higher patriarchal societies, it was not the role of a man to be submissive but that of a woman. In Ancient Rome let's say, it was expected and socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role.
For clarification this pastor’s use of the term crimes against nature refers to 19th century English legal terminology. Whether he is aware of this is another question. Catholic thinkers have [re]interpreted the use of the English word nature here and in Romans 1 in the Aristotelian sense of purpose (teleology) as opposed to how it is understood in the natural sciences. I mention this since I don’t think we should assume someone is using the word in one sense or another without additional context.
Thank you for making this video. I want to verify some of the words and look deeper in the Hebrew but I am not sure where to look. You mentioned a lot of background knowledge of the original biblical language. Where can I find out more about this and the historical meaning of the words . Thank you 😊
Very true , homosexuality was not the problem of Sodom and Gomorrah , but rather what you said ... There is a rabbi , who is well known and respected world wide , because of the knowledge he has on many things , and religions of the world . His name is Rabbi Zamir Cohen ... He has some RU-vid videos , with English subtitles , but if you understand a little bit of Hebrew , he has tens of Videos , and the difference with him is , the way he explains life ..
Problem is, most Christians either don't trust the opinions of rabbis, or are absolutely disinterested in listening to anything rabbis - especially the Orthodox - have to say about the Torah.
I understand when you refer to the word that is shared in these texts "Shachav" Shin,Chaf,Vet which means to lie down. But the additional word yaaneha are used in reference to rape for example with Dina but are not used when referring to 2 consenting males in Leviticus 18-20. So, as it is the same word shachav referring to adultery with a man's wife in the previous verse (Lev18:20), and shachav in regards to bestiality in the following verse(Lev18:23), it is apparent it is not referring to rape, like with Dina, or your suggestion mentioning the last chapter of Judges. Can you help me understand what you are meaning by what you say about one man being forced, and where in the bible does it say a man was raped? The only place I can consider remotely close is when Noah's nakedness was uncovered by Canaan. I'm genuinely interested in understanding where you acquire your sources of research. I'm familiar with Hebrew and what you describe is not how it is written. Nevertheless I hope to see more videos of you debating with actual scholars and perhaps even other doctors or Rabbis for that matter. All the best.
It is hostility against and mistreatment of strangers in need. They were supposed to treat those strangers (angels) with hospitality. Now, apply that to today's conservatives who hold hostile views against migrants who seek asylum status in this country.
Yes, I would be interested to see his take, as well. If you will allow me to share my own perspective, as I understand it, it was the practice to create laws that were "a step more strict" than what the powers that were felt was necessary. In this way, they were able to grant more leniency, but still had their bases covered in those instances where they believed more control needed to be exercised, and they didn't want to have to litigate every nuance. Consider the contemporary example of Walmarts posting "no overnight parking" signs, but then allowing RV's and others to park overnight. "What is the point, then?" one may ask. Consider, however, someone who parks overnight and makes a disturbance of it - letting out their awning into the aisleway between the parking spaces, putting out chairs and a BBQ grill, playing loud music, littering, etc. Rather than spelling all of this out, by posting signs "banning" overnight parking, they can simply choose when to enforce that rule, when their leniency is otherwise taken for granted. As for the change during the Hellenistic period, I think the answer is in the name of the age, itself. What I mean is that the Jewish culture was in a process of Hellenization - coming under greater influence of the secular world - and so a subculture of "strict adherence" became a sort of reaction formation to guard against being "contaminated" by "the other." Again, I think we see strong parallels to this in our present day and age where there are people who come together in groups in a very reactive way to enforce all sorts of "purity laws" as an almost superstitious attempt to ward off the "contamination" that accompanies increased social integration and the perception that traditions are being replaced by new ways of doing things. At the risk of invoking Poe's Law, consider also how the N@zi regime is seen as the archetype of this sort of strict "purity," and how it was preceded by the starkly contrasting progressiveness of the Weimar Republic. TL;DR ---> they wanted to Make Judea Great Again
The most forceful argument may be from Yonatan Adler in _The Origins Of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal_ (Yale, 2022). He is commonly cited to support a dramatic Hellenistic shift in abidance to canonical Jewish law, as it's the first time we see _verifiable,_ widespread practice in both the archeological & written records. Prior to this, many of these laws may have simply been held by either the elite or by specific schools/communities. _Remembering Abraham_ by Hendel, and _Evolution of a Taboo_ by Price also touch on this. Typically, these cultural laws arise and gain traction when they protect group identity. The more at-risk a group perceives themselves to be, the more they intuitively ramp up gatekeeping and search for ways to differentiate outsiders. Hellenism's alluring transformative power, together with the assault from the Seleucids, appears to have served as a catalyst for identity-protection in extraordinary ways. There were tremendous inter-Jewish conflicts at this time, and whole groups irreparably splintered (including the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes). Cohen's _From the Maccabees to the Mishnah_ (third edition) is a great glimpse into the conflicts.
Hard to have much discussion about this when the information from that time is so slim. I think that is what the discussion would be: We have no good information on this.
3:00 Notice that Dan says that post Exilic Jews had strong feelings. Its hard to know when it would have started. But what would the early Christians and Jews of the first century have said? Philo of Alexandria was a prominent Jewish commentator who lived at the time of Jesus. His commentary on Sodom and Gomorrah is the earliest I have found so far. It gives an indication of what people at the time of Jesus thought: The people of Sodom, which used to be a part of Canaan and later became Syrian Palestine, had a terrible reputation for wrongdoing. ... [The people of Sodom] were out of control. Their desires deviated from what's natural.... some men even desired other men (going against their natural inclinations). They ignored the common moral values that guide human behavior and followed their own passions. ... (So God destroyed them).
Leviticus 20:13 in the Bible reads, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." This verse is often cited in discussions about homosexuality and reflects the views on same-sex relations in the Old Testament. It's important to consider historical and cultural contexts when interpreting such passages.
It was a taboo on a specific way of having secs. There is no justification for expanding its scope to all "same-secs" acts let alone to "same-secs relations". That's like using the commandment against adultery to condemn all heteroxesual relations. Yes, historical context is important. It was an Israelite concern. Paul makes clear that we do not obey God by following rules e.g. Rom 7.6.
What do you think of the explanation of homosexual sex being a sin because sex was for populating the planet only, even spilling your seed on the ground was a sin, and since homosexual intercourse can not result in a child, it was condemned only for that reason? I’ve heard this discussed by a few theology scholars and always found it a pretty solid reasoning, but again I’m not a theology expert.
Here some scientific facts about homosexuality, maybe they answer your question: + The WHO, World Health Organization, stated clearly, that homosexuality not a disease or disorder, but a healthy natural sexual orientation. + It is most likely innate (determined by SNP in several genes and by antibodies (NLGN4Y) during pregnancy), as the opposite sex is never sexual attractive to people born homosexual. + Evolution scientists stated in several publications, that homosexuality exists since sexuality exists, since 385 million years. + They also stated, that having homosexual members in the own tribe, gives several evolutionary advantages, which explains the permanent share of 4-10% homosexuals of the population. >> So, the question would be rather: why putting an ethical limit on homosexuality if its natural, healthy and even with a natural sense? >> Especially now as more and more homosexuals marry and adopt and raise kids that else wise would have no parents. +++
The idea that sexual assault is primarily about power was originally proposed by a journalist in the 70s and still, to this day, has no scientific basis. It's just something catchy that somebody wrote in a book as a kind of feminist rallying cry, and it caught the popular imagination.
This video is confusing to me. It seems the scriptures in Lev. do condemn homosexual acts but for reasons I don’t understand because of the cultural differences of these ancient times.
Christianity early on developed the idea that people should only go to bed to make babies, so these passages for centuries were understood to exemplify the sinful act of non-reproductive secs, not homoxesuality which was unheard of. By mid 20th cent, you start seeing references to homoxesuality. A significant instance was a mistranslation in 1 Cor 6.9, "homoxesuals will not inherit the kingdom of God". This was corrected in a revised edition, but not before the error was copied into other far more popular versions in the early 70s whose translators missed seeing the correction. Because at the time it was considered a disorder and had some continuity with tradition, the error went unchallenged. The idea thus developed that homoxesuality was a sin that people could repent from. Soon after, scientific consensus changed in response to the observation that it was a harmless natural variation. But now that Bibles condemned it, the church dug its heels and late 70s early 80s invented a theology to justify why it would be wrong. Basically, the Bible says that men marry women, so other options must be sinful (go figure), plus every reference in the Bible to men with men is negative (overlooking that this is circumstantial). Does that help?
@@onemanarmy2electricboogalo687 Yeah it's a terse summary of a very complex topic. It's partly this complexity that has created all the controversy. Basically, homoxesuality was discovered late 19th cent, around mid 20th Christians erroneously started interpreting events in the Bible involving men having secs with men as being about homoxesuality. By the 70s the word was anachronistically used in many Bibles. By the 80s theology developed to justify the error. Also since the 80s theology developed to show that the Bible had nothing against it, but those voices were drowned out. You'll have to be more specific about what you don't follow.
Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
The angels who came to Sodom were also referred to as men in Genesis 19, and it is clear that the men of Sodom saw them as such (verse 5), and the text refers to them as men again in verse 10. Judges 19 records a similar event, and helps to clarify events in Genesis 19. In both cases the daughter(s) of those who were sojourning there were rejected by the mob in favor of the visitors: they wanted the new faces in town. In the case of Gibeah, one of the visitors was female, and was accepted by the mob,, indicating that the men were bisexual. This would also hold true for the men of Sodom as "...the men of the city, even the men of Sodom...both old and young, all the people from every quarter...." (verse 4) couldn't all have been homosexual as homosexuals don't reproduce, but bisexuals do. As the visitors to Sodom were both angels, nothing like what the mob there wanted to do was going to happen. Gibeah was a different story as both visitors were mortal, so something was going to happen. The "strange flesh" of Jude 1:7 could also refer to animals as the men of Sodom were not discriminatory as to the recipient of their namesake sin. The stories of ancient Greek gods having sex with mortal women, who gave birth to demigods, is an outside source that validates the story of Genesis 6.
I think Dan puts way too much emphasis on inhospitality as if that was the reason why Sodom was destroyed. Inhospitality is not a great thing but Sodom did not own the market on that. I am sure every city on the planet at that time had some people who were mean to outsiders. Same is true today. There is no reason to believe God is going to destroy a city over some examples on inhospitality. Dan does cite Ezekiel that the people in Sodom did not take care of the poor and all that. True but once again, not unique to Sodom. Also Jude 1:7 says: ""just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these angels indulged in sexual perversion and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7 NASB) So yes inhospitality and not taking care of the poor was present in Sodom. So was other things like "sexual perversion". Probably a lot other things as well. I am sure some homosexual behavior was going on as well but there is no reason to believe there were more gays present in Sodom than in San Francisco. The reason Sodom was destroyed was not due to these singular issues but God targeted Sodom's destruction because there were no righteous people left as discussed in Genesis 18. The events in Genesis 19 simply are an example of how bad the people of Sodom was but was not the cause of its destruction. God was going to spare Sodom if 10 righteous people were found. Evidently there where not 10 righteous people in the city and God took it out.
Dan is working to make the case that the scriptures only matter to the extent that you want them to matter. I think his approach is 1) This is not really scripture from God 2) It may have a meaning but you get to decide what that is 3) if you then decide it is against homosexuality you might have a point but you are not a good person for making that decision and you are causing harm.
So the angels that saved Lot blinded all the men in front of Lot's house because they were proud, fat and weren't very nice to people?? That doesn't seem quite right...
In leviticus 18 God Himself is speaking to Moses. God Himself calls homosexual activity an abomination. The fact that you appeal to homosexual acts in nature as grounds to suggest these activities are to be seen as normative and acceptable practices among people tells me a great deal about the direction your moral compass affixes itself. I truly marvel at the places where man will interject with his personal opinion about matters that God has spoken quite clear and plainly on.
Christians don"t live according to the ancient jewish laws of leviticus. The laws of leviticus are outdated and completely idiotic. Some of these laws are nowadays even crimes. I hope you never eaten shellfish or you'll burn in everlasting flames says leviticus. How can you take leviticus/bible seriously? The "wisdom "of the religious teachers from the bible is the "wisdom " of people who lived in primitive and barbaric cultures from ancient times. Their neurotic and bigoted religious ideas are of no value to modern people anymore. God has nothing to do with the insanity of leviticus.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Mar 10:7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, Mar 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
You're kidding, right? Rom 1 doesn't describe homoxesuality, 1 Cor 6 has been mistranslated, Mk 10 says nothing against same-secs marriage, and Lev no longer applies (e.g. Rom 7.6, Acts 15.10).
I dunno. Ritual cleanliness was real popular then. Sexuality is more of a Kama Sutra thing I would guess. God doesn't do afterthoughts. When he created Adam; the father of all, Lilith was created at the same time. She fled to be Satan's concubine (though a eunuch due to the angelic state). So God then created Eve for it is not good for man to be alone. The "angel" that kidnapped one of Jethro's daughters was none other than Mo ses.
Those who condem gay and lesbian people are decieved. God made everyone different cause he formed our brains in the womb. So people actually think people are born to go to hell. Thats nuts.
That's what I have always considered a problem with the Calvinist tenet that we do not accept God's grace of our own free will but only after God has moved us to accept it. The logical outcome is that there exist people whom God has not motivated who are condemned precisely because God did not try to save them. This is in direct contradiction to the tradition in which I was raised that says God is constantly asking us to return to him and we are free to accept or reject that invitation. Edit to add missing word
Since the subject of this video could probably give a rats ass about whether he is translating the original hebrew text properly and using the correct exegesis im really not going to make comment about him. I think the story about the concubine in the Judges is making several points that jewish traditions would emphasize. The set logic here for example is that uzziah was justifyably sent off to death because he did not sleep with his wife as the king demanded. In the case of the concubine she did not obey her master and return to the place of her parents, forcing he lord to go fetch her. As a consequence her life is worth less than that if she had obeyed her lord per the logic of why David did not commit a stonable offense by sending Uzziah off on a suicide mission. So the fact that the lord stepped over his dying concubine is not really a moral point so much as a point of shame on the part of women who left their masters. The shame is furthered by the fact he cuts her body into parts and scatters them to the four winds. You can't make a silk purse out of as sows ear, remember the deuteronomist were the same people who threw Asherah out of the temple, stop women from making Asherah cakes, probably ended worship to Astarte and Anat (as best the could) and tore down dozens of alters. This was an authoritarian/monarchy. Yosiah did nit live long and the priest used the opportunity to consolidate their power under a young and niave king. The second point though about Judges is that the Deuteronomist need to try to explain why the Israelites were doing things one way under the judges and the Judeans decided to do things a completely different way. One of the major things they try to explain why Jerusalem, a city within benjaminite land ended up being the capital of Yahudah. I think the story tries to explain why the benjaminites did not deserve Urushalim and why it therefore had to be taken, not from the jebusites, but the benjaminites of whom the jebusites were simply the faction in that city. In addition it gives a backdrop of why Saul is inferior. Samuel paints kings as essentially parasites. And so the first king is going to be a parasite and we need a background for him that is wicked, so that we can explain why a Judean, a bethlehemite is selected. And it tries to paint David as a person of lesser origin, but its pretty certain that Bethlehem was the capital of Yahudah and David was probably within the lead family in that group. So David has this episode were he brings the ark of tye covenent to the town, but the high priest correctly tells him, the ark of 'el' and his tabernacle cannot be placed in or around hewn stone. Hes a wilderness god who sits on peaks. David in rapid succession breaks a number of taboos, the taking of Urushalim is probably the most agregious. But he has the power to chase his enemies back to shechem, so he gets to unite his southern kingdom and sue for peace. Taboo breaking or not, the Deuteronomist are notorious in creating a narrative why every thing that's bad happened because someone was not righteous in the eyes of god, so they need to explain why David deserved to be king and Sauls line did not. So you tuck this little 'fouled concubine' narrative in Judges and the problem is solved. What I am trying to say the meaning in Genesis of Sodom and Gomorrah are geneologically related but the purposes are very different. In genesis Abraham is shown to be a part of an authoritativs system of priests and their agents (messengers) and how relationships in later judges would be worked out. But in Judges the story is different, we need an explanation why their population fell and they lost power, and we can solve this by saying their wicked and the men had to die, and how judah ended up
The historical interpretation of Genesis 19 includes the crime of $odomy. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." As long as we're going to be comparing scripture with scripture, we may as well be thorough. The only city which was guilty of sex with angels was Sodom, yet all of the cities here are named as guilty parties, so it must be a crime common to all.
The Jews must have been massive procrastinators. They seem to have waited 1000+ years to get around to fixing the problems (at least ~1000 years pass between the destruction of Sodom and Leviticus being written. Assuming Sodom wasn't fictional).
@@howlrichard1028 Because Dr. Dan said that the proscription was against taking the receptive, female part in a homosexual relationship, not the actual sex act itself. He then stated that it was expanded to include the penetrating, male as well because that requires one to put another in the passive position. But he insists there is nothing wrong with same sex sex. That's how I drew my conclusion. Did you listen to the episode? BTW I have no objections to gays myself, I just don't see the bible as being pro homosexuality as Dan does.
Excellent 😊..... God says man should not lay with man... no mention of woman not laying with woman 😂 Point of not "laying around" with each other, is to avoid bringing about unwanted fruits.... children, diseases, desires for raping etc... Seperate yourself from the flesh and live in the spirit of Love ❤
Whether I agree or disagree with the interpretation the clearest text that shows the Biblical view of homosexuality is Romans 1:27 “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” Passion here is also used for the word that’s often translated for desires. we should always use explicit and clear texts to set the foundation for the unclear text. I do agree with Dan on the Sodom issue but disagree with the levitical text but either way, Paul makes a clear stance. Also Jesus teaches that sexual immorality is anything outside of God’s design and God made male and female to bind together as one flesh in marriage so anything outside of that is sexually immoral
@@yeboscrebo4451 Dan is pretty clear that EVERYONE has no negotiate with the test and no one can claim to understand the intent of the original authors. In any case, he's not the one condemning entire groups of people on the basis of his understanding.
I did a quick search focusing on scholarly articles and the answer is, it's complicated. Both Iust and power can be contributing factors. Britannica: "The psychological motivations of ra--ists are more complex than was formerly thought. They may include the desire to punish, to gain revenge, to cause pain, to prove se--al prowess, and to control through fear." Also mentions its use as a weapon of war. (I recall that in Bosnia it was to destroy opponents' societal cohesion, definitely not Iust.)
@MusicalRaichu Man come on....Men beat the crap out of each other when there's a problem not rape each other. A violent homosexual on the other hand, I suppose, will rape an opponent. Your average straight man couldn't commit that act on another man with out some sort of attractive or violent lust. God's word teaches us of the "prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" My brother there's so much information and lies floating around and all are by design and that is to turn us from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. Almost every evil possible is being validated because there is an enemy feverishly at work because his time is short.
@@samulmagnus1 "so much information" that's why I limited myself to academic, peer-reviewed articles. Straight men have raiped other men - just like the threat in Gen 19. And like the encyclopedia said, raip has been used a weapon of war. There's some limited validity to both your and Dan's generalization, but human behaviour is varied and complex. Reality is not limited to what you personally can imagine it to be.
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Jude 1:7 KJV
Dan likes to mislead like always 🙄 The very next verse in Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 16:50 says they were haughty and did an abomination before me. And abomination is a word that’s used in Leviticus in the singular, as it is here, to refer to gravely immoral sexual acts, in particular, homosexual acts. So he seems to be, I hate to say deliberately quoting out of context, but it’s hard to miss the fact that he simply omitted the very next verse of the passage he quoted. So he seems to imply that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality, but really it’s a false dilemma. It’s not, was it inhospitality or was it homosexual behavior? Rather, it was both, and we see that in the Sodom story itself in Genesis, and then we see it in later references to it, as in Ezekiel.
The term "abominable" essentially meant "against our religion". It referred to cultural taboos like not eating pork, to idolatrous rites, and to unethical behaviour like injustice and dishonesty in business. Ez 16 is about unethical behaviour. But a male put in a woman's role in bed is a cultural taboo. It's a stretch, and at best is about attempted gangraip. You mention homoxesuality, but such a way of categorizing secs acts did not exist until modern times. If, hypothetically speaking, the concern really had been homoxesuality, it would have said "men don't lie with men" and "women don't lie with women". But it said neither.
dorothy etc: Leave him alone. It is important to pick one's battles. If he "takes on" the Book of Mormon, does that mean you will suddenly accept everything he has to say elsewhere? If the answer is "no", then why on Earth are you mentioning the Book of Mormon? It has nothing to do with Dr McClellan's remarks about other things. Forgive me for being a bit blunt, but your short comment leads me to hypothesise that you are a Christian of some sort and you do not like hearing the truth about the foundational texts, so you throw up a smoke screen - "the Mormon Scriptures" - in order to ignore what does not fit with your preferred beliefs.
@@user-mv7fu1qv7o no because I did not. I simply stated that there is no verse in the original hebrew or in the tanach that says anything about homosexuality. Do you see the logical fallacy you engaged in?
Another YTer I follow runs into the Genesis 6 angels in conspiracy theories a lot. Humans mating with giants! Near-immortal beings! The evidence is hidden except to YT creators and people who self-publish their books on the subject! Now we see the real problem is people wanting to mate with angels in the first place. That's the deeper sin of Sodom, not just inhospitality. Angel r@pe. Sort of divine bestiality, if you will. And I don't know about you, but I would not even begin to touch an angel that way. I like staying alive after my good time is over, thank you. Wait. That poor woman was SA'ed to death. What if they believed angels would survive the onslaught? I'm filing that one in with the other weird writing prompts in my head.
The Bible gives several instances of how homosexuality is condemned. Listen to this guy trying to cross an I and dot a t is disgusting. Hate the sin not the sinner. It's not to late to change your ways and work on making heaven your home. This life isn't about satisfying our desires, and it's about serving the Lord. We all for short of glory and no one is better than anyone else. Doesn't matter if you live the lifestyle of a homosexual, liar, and thief, or fornicator; it's not too late to change and live your life as God desires. I love each and everyone of you and hope to see yall in heaven
Ok, I am debubking this. The Sanhendrin would enforce the laws of Leviticus 18 and 22. The laws are agianst male intercourse. This is what the Halakha says.
jac etc: What is your point, exactly? People have enforced unjust and irrational laws down the centuries. Are you suggesting we return to a time when those unjust and irrational laws were part of life?
Dan you are so wrong. Read the chapter in Genesis 19. God destroy these two cities for homosexuality. God would not kill people because they were not nice.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 KJV 49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. Leviticus 18:22 KJV Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Jude 1:7 KJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
The first one has nothing to do with homosexuality (just read 📖 it) The second and third could refer to it or thematically similar things, expect the fornication bit (fornication is never defined, but not being adultery, being distinct from it and married men able to do it contradicts every explanation I have ever heard from a believer 🙏; seeking demonic possession is a definition that actually makes sense)
“And there was Lot, who had said to his people, “You are committing an obscenity not perpetrated before you by anyone in the whole world!” “You approach men, and cut off the the road, and commit lewdness in your gatherings.” But the only response from his people was to say, “Bring on us God’s punishment, if what you’re saying is true!” _(The Qur’ān, Sūrah __29:28__-29)_ --------------- “And Lot, when he said to his people, “Do you commit lewdness no people anywhere have ever committed before you?” “You lust after men rather than women. You are truly an excessive folk.” _(Qur’an 8:80-81)_
All I can say is, "WOW!" This man, it seems to me, thinks that the Scriptures are just the writings of men. He needs to read it as it is...there is only one God and that He is represented in three ways.
There are way more then one God in the Bible. Please dont lie about there only being one God. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 8 When the Most High[a] apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods;[b] 9 the Lord’s own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.
Joseph Smith had a positive view of Luther's German translation. It is interesting how he translated texts used in regard to homosexuality Martin Luther’s Translation of controversial Bible texts dealing with Homosexuality. I Corinthians 6:9 NRSV (New Revised Standard Version)9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, Luther’s Translation 1545 9 Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder Google translation of Luther’s translation 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be seduced! Neither the fornicators nor the idolaters nor the adulterers nor the sissies nor the boy-molesters Leviticus 18:22 NRSV 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Luther’s translation 1545 22 Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel. Google translation 22 Thou shalt not lie with the boy as with the woman; because it is an abomination. Leviticus 20:1313 NRSV “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Luther’s translation 1545 13 Wenn jemand beim Knaben schläft wie beim Weibe, die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen. Google Translation 13 If a man sleep with a boy like a woman, they have done an abomination, and both shall die of death; her 1 Timothy 1:10 NSRV 10 fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teachingLuther’s translation 1545 Luthers Translation. 10 den Hurern, den Knabenschändern, den Menschendieben, den Lügnern, den Meineidigen und so etwas mehr der heilsamen Lehre zuwider ist, Google translation To the whores, the boy-shiters, the thieves, the liars, the perjurers, and so much more contrary to the salutary doctrine
No, it flatly doesn't. LGBT+ people are not first-century CE Roman pagan idolaters. Paul's screed hinges upon the idea that the pagan Romans have offended God by worshipping created images.
