Does The Bible Have Mixed Messages on Sexuality? Depends on who you are asking.
. Higher Criticism is Garbage! So I guess it should not surprise me to see what comes out of collegiate theology schools. Hopefully, we can keep this out of the seminary but I doubt it. This is from a CNN Blog on Religion so I guess I should not be surprised by the writer Jennifer Wright Knust's view on the Bible and sexuality and her belief that the messages are mixed. Are they?Interestingly enough she begins the liberal argument on Biblical views on sexuality the same way. Usually women priests are liberal zealots as any orthodox church would never ordain a woman. Women are not ordained because the pastoral ministries have always been the role of men. This is not because we Christians are bigots! Anyhow below Ms. Knust begins her argumentation from her "Take". By the way, a take does not count for a fact so perhaps we should not be kneejerk about this. Ms. Knust states,As a Bible scholar and pastor myself, The Bible says Homosexuality is not a sin. Actually the Bible does say it is a sin.I guess we are not supposed to take any of what the Epistles say or for that matter the Old Testament seriously. Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor 6:9-10 To lie with a man as one lies with a woman is an abomination Leviticus 18:22 and let us not forget to mention Romans Chapter 2. The people who try and substantiate their argument by saying commited homosexual relationships are excluded and not fornication are flimsy arguments. If we look at the Old Testament it clearly states that such behavior is an abomination. Scripture interprets Scripture if the New Testament derivates from the Old then our faith is not Scriptural or Christian. She also says,"I love gay people, but the Bible forces me to condemn them" is a poor excuse that attempts to avoid accountability by wrapping a very particular and narrow interpretation of a few biblical passages in a cloak of divinely inspired respectability. Actually, I do not condemn as we are all worthy of condemnation. But, I am one of those people who condemn this behavior and do not excuse my sins but repent of my sins daily. I am no holier than anyone else. As Christians we should love our neighbor( including gay people) as ourself as we are commanded to by Christ as said in Matthew 19:19,22:39, Mark 12:31, and Matthew 5:43. We are also told not to ignore the plank in our own eye while saying to our brother to remove the speck from his. To be honest I think it is rather unloving to not point other sinners to where life is and that life is in Christ. What a disservice to our fellow man to not share the saving Gospel with him. In a nutshell I am a sinner and I am in need of God's forgiveness. All fornicators(including me) and this includes homosexuals and whos sin in thought word and deed need forgiveness because even the thought is sin . Those who continue in impenitence straight , bi, or gay are committing grave sins that will send them to hell and I do not want my neighbor going to hell so I will announce to him or her the forgiveness of sins through Christ after faith, actually when one believes in Christ his sins are forgiven. This is true love for ones neighbor. Love for ones neighbor is not saying whatever floats your boat if the boat is sinking! However, true faith comes from repentance from sexual sins homo or hetero. Ms. Knust is doing another diservice to her fellow human beings by sitting in the judgment sit of God and saying God loves you and your perversion. By the way, isn't not sitting in the seat of judgment but making a judgment sitting in the judgment seat? Truth is, Scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. And biblical writers held a much more complicated view of human sexuality than contemporary debates have acknowledged. This is the argument that is always used if we continue to believe this we either do not trust the Scriptures or continue to believe they say whatever we want. It would seem to be obvious she is taking the high ground as she is not using Scripture to defend her points of view. That is because Scripture says something completly different. If you believe what she is stating then you cannot trust any Scriptural record. In Genesis, for example, it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality. Where is this said? From what we can see differentiation is exactly what God had in mind I thought the Gnostics were heretics? Talmudic Scholars are Jews so they will not believe the New Testament and will not read the Scriptures the way they are to be read. By the way, none of these are Christian sources. If we go to Genesis 2 it says that he made them Male and Female. Does that sound androgenous to you? Genesis includes two versions of the story of God’s creation of the human person. First, God creates humanity male and female and then God forms the human person again, this time in the Garden of Eden. The second human person is given the name Adam and the female is formed from his rib. There is also the Lillian Allegory. However, Jews will state that the first five books of the Bible cannot be changed as this the Torah. That however, does not mean it cannot be debated by the Talmudic Scholars. Often times Jewish Scholars debate on things that are not written and form their allegories. If this position has validity how can the Jews trust the Torah and how can the Bible be legitimized? Why is only one Genesis in the Bible and why are not two versions available. I think the Genesis allegory she speaks of is what is known as the Lillian Allegory. Lillith was the first Eve and she did not want to be Adam's helper or partner and wanted to assert her superior position in sexuality. Lillith wanted to be on top of Adam, in simple speak. So she was banished and then came Eve who was content with being the helpmate to Adam. Again why are we only hearing this in the circles who deny the Scriptures? I guess for the same reasons Talmudic Scholars like to debate all day about what should be said in the Bible. I guess if you are Jewish and you believe in the Torah then you have to have some doubt in whether it can be trusted. Ms. Knust is not really addressing the Lillian Allegory here she says that the male and female are created and then created again in the Garden of Eden this time with the woman being from the rib of Adam. Isn't it funny though the only story we know of and that Moses speaks of is the one that is in Genesis that speaks of Adam's rib. Lutheran Theologian Chemnitz would say that the longer the oral tradition was in place the more chance for corruption and it was therefore God's desire to have Moses write the first five books of the Bible and if what Moses wrote was from God? Then all of this other baloney is nonsense. The more things remain unwritten the less trustworthy they become. None of these so called legends are in the book of Genesis the only story we know of is the one that is in Genesis. Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two. Beware of the use of the word "Ancient Christian" when people who take this position on the Scriptures it is usually referring to Gnosticism which is not Christian. The Epistles, Gospels and the Old Testament never speak of androgyny. If anything there is a distinction made between the roles of the man and woman. Once again when we speak of Jewish Scripture it can always be thrown into question as the Rabbis always debate what they think happened in the text rather than what it actually says. In Judaism it seems that there is a lot of looking at what is behind the text rather than accepting what the text has to say. The first five books of Scripture say what they say and should be accepted for what they are God's Word and not be subject to Rabbinical Wanderings and myth. According to this account, the man “clings to the woman” in an attempt to regain half his flesh, which God took from him once he was placed in Eden. As third century Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman explained, when God created the first man, God created him with two faces. “Then he split the androgyne and made two bodies, one on each side, and turned them about. Again more Jewish mysticism and mental meanderings about what happened. I am not a Jew and therefore do not read the Scriptures like one I am a Christian and therefore I see Christ throughout the Scriptures Old and New Testament. Making assumptions about what happened do not strengthen faith and also are attempting to say what is not rather than stick to what is revealed. If it is not in the Scriptures it is not Scriptural. I am going to continue this post later on as much of what Ms. Knust says is wrong. But this post on her blog is incredibly large and I think I may have played Midnight Caller a little to long. So for those of you who may read this enjoy! http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/09/my-take-the-bible%e2%80%99s-surprisingly-mixed-messages-on-sexuality/
. Higher Criticism is Garbage! So I guess it should not surprise me to see what comes out of collegiate theology schools. Hopefully, we can keep this out of the seminary but I doubt it. This is from a CNN Blog on Religion so I guess I should not be surprised by the writer Jennifer Wright Knust's view on the Bible and sexuality and her belief that the messages are mixed. Are they?Interestingly enough she begins the liberal argument on Biblical views on sexuality the same way. Usually women priests are liberal zealots as any orthodox church would never ordain a woman. Women are not ordained because the pastoral ministries have always been the role of men. This is not because we Christians are bigots! Anyhow below Ms. Knust begins her argumentation from her "Take". By the way, a take does not count for a fact so perhaps we should not be kneejerk about this. Ms. Knust states,As a Bible scholar and pastor myself, The Bible says Homosexuality is not a sin. Actually the Bible does say it is a sin.I guess we are not supposed to take any of what the Epistles say or for that matter the Old Testament seriously. Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor 6:9-10 To lie with a man as one lies with a woman is an abomination Leviticus 18:22 and let us not forget to mention Romans Chapter 2. The people who try and substantiate their argument by saying commited homosexual relationships are excluded and not fornication are flimsy arguments. If we look at the Old Testament it clearly states that such behavior is an abomination. Scripture interprets Scripture if the New Testament derivates from the Old then our faith is not Scriptural or Christian. She also says,"I love gay people, but the Bible forces me to condemn them" is a poor excuse that attempts to avoid accountability by wrapping a very particular and narrow interpretation of a few biblical passages in a cloak of divinely inspired respectability. Actually, I do not condemn as we are all worthy of condemnation. But, I am one of those people who condemn this behavior and do not excuse my sins but repent of my sins daily. I am no holier than anyone else. As Christians we should love our neighbor( including gay people) as ourself as we are commanded to by Christ as said in Matthew 19:19,22:39, Mark 12:31, and Matthew 5:43. We are also told not to ignore the plank in our own eye while saying to our brother to remove the speck from his. To be honest I think it is rather unloving to not point other sinners to where life is and that life is in Christ. What a disservice to our fellow man to not share the saving Gospel with him. In a nutshell I am a sinner and I am in need of God's forgiveness. All fornicators(including me) and this includes homosexuals and whos sin in thought word and deed need forgiveness because even the thought is sin . Those who continue in impenitence straight , bi, or gay are committing grave sins that will send them to hell and I do not want my neighbor going to hell so I will announce to him or her the forgiveness of sins through Christ after faith, actually when one believes in Christ his sins are forgiven. This is true love for ones neighbor. Love for ones neighbor is not saying whatever floats your boat if the boat is sinking! However, true faith comes from repentance from sexual sins homo or hetero. Ms. Knust is doing another diservice to her fellow human beings by sitting in the judgment sit of God and saying God loves you and your perversion. By the way, isn't not sitting in the seat of judgment but making a judgment sitting in the judgment seat? Truth is, Scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. And biblical writers held a much more complicated view of human sexuality than contemporary debates have acknowledged. This is the argument that is always used if we continue to believe this we either do not trust the Scriptures or continue to believe they say whatever we want. It would seem to be obvious she is taking the high ground as she is not using Scripture to defend her points of view. That is because Scripture says something completly different. If you believe what she is stating then you cannot trust any Scriptural record. In Genesis, for example, it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality. Where is this said? From what we can see differentiation is exactly what God had in mind I thought the Gnostics were heretics? Talmudic Scholars are Jews so they will not believe the New Testament and will not read the Scriptures the way they are to be read. By the way, none of these are Christian sources. If we go to Genesis 2 it says that he made them Male and Female. Does that sound androgenous to you? Genesis includes two versions of the story of God’s creation of the human person. First, God creates humanity male and female and then God forms the human person again, this time in the Garden of Eden. The second human person is given the name Adam and the female is formed from his rib. There is also the Lillian Allegory. However, Jews will state that the first five books of the Bible cannot be changed as this the Torah. That however, does not mean it cannot be debated by the Talmudic Scholars. Often times Jewish Scholars debate on things that are not written and form their allegories. If this position has validity how can the Jews trust the Torah and how can the Bible be legitimized? Why is only one Genesis in the Bible and why are not two versions available. I think the Genesis allegory she speaks of is what is known as the Lillian Allegory. Lillith was the first Eve and she did not want to be Adam's helper or partner and wanted to assert her superior position in sexuality. Lillith wanted to be on top of Adam, in simple speak. So she was banished and then came Eve who was content with being the helpmate to Adam. Again why are we only hearing this in the circles who deny the Scriptures? I guess for the same reasons Talmudic Scholars like to debate all day about what should be said in the Bible. I guess if you are Jewish and you believe in the Torah then you have to have some doubt in whether it can be trusted. Ms. Knust is not really addressing the Lillian Allegory here she says that the male and female are created and then created again in the Garden of Eden this time with the woman being from the rib of Adam. Isn't it funny though the only story we know of and that Moses speaks of is the one that is in Genesis that speaks of Adam's rib. Lutheran Theologian Chemnitz would say that the longer the oral tradition was in place the more chance for corruption and it was therefore God's desire to have Moses write the first five books of the Bible and if what Moses wrote was from God? Then all of this other baloney is nonsense. The more things remain unwritten the less trustworthy they become. None of these so called legends are in the book of Genesis the only story we know of is the one that is in Genesis. Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two. Beware of the use of the word "Ancient Christian" when people who take this position on the Scriptures it is usually referring to Gnosticism which is not Christian. The Epistles, Gospels and the Old Testament never speak of androgyny. If anything there is a distinction made between the roles of the man and woman. Once again when we speak of Jewish Scripture it can always be thrown into question as the Rabbis always debate what they think happened in the text rather than what it actually says. In Judaism it seems that there is a lot of looking at what is behind the text rather than accepting what the text has to say. The first five books of Scripture say what they say and should be accepted for what they are God's Word and not be subject to Rabbinical Wanderings and myth. According to this account, the man “clings to the woman” in an attempt to regain half his flesh, which God took from him once he was placed in Eden. As third century Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman explained, when God created the first man, God created him with two faces. “Then he split the androgyne and made two bodies, one on each side, and turned them about. Again more Jewish mysticism and mental meanderings about what happened. I am not a Jew and therefore do not read the Scriptures like one I am a Christian and therefore I see Christ throughout the Scriptures Old and New Testament. Making assumptions about what happened do not strengthen faith and also are attempting to say what is not rather than stick to what is revealed. If it is not in the Scriptures it is not Scriptural. I am going to continue this post later on as much of what Ms. Knust says is wrong. But this post on her blog is incredibly large and I think I may have played Midnight Caller a little to long. So for those of you who may read this enjoy! http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/09/my-take-the-bible%e2%80%99s-surprisingly-mixed-messages-on-sexuality/
No comments:
Post a Comment