Hillsong shifts on Homosexuality

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I was not able to reply to what I wanted, which was this pastors assertion that Jesus was surrounded by a homosexual culture and never addressed/mentioned it.
I've heard this argument several times and I suggest this response:


1)That is TOTALLY false and disingenuous. Homosexuality perhaps was spread throughout the Roman Empire in the ancient world, but in Jewish culture it was an abomination. Any suggestion that Jesus was surrounded by homosexuals is unverifiable and quite unlikely.

2)since homosexuality was an abomination and punishable by death in Judaism, and since Jesus was a Jew who affirmed the authority if the Torah, it would be illogical to think He didn't believe it. (This is much more so for anyone who affirms Jesus is God, for as such He is the giver of the law)

3)Jesus defined all sexual activity outside of marriage as fornication.

4) Jesus defined marriage as between male and female

Great post, Jason!!!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I was not able to reply to what I wanted, which was this pastors assertion that Jesus was surrounded by a homosexual culture and never addressed/mentioned it.
I've heard this argument several times and I suggest this response:


1)That is TOTALLY false and disingenuous. Homosexuality perhaps was spread throughout the Roman Empire in the ancient world, but in Jewish culture it was an abomination. Any suggestion that Jesus was surrounded by homosexuals is unverifiable and quite unlikely.

2)since homosexuality was an abomination and punishable by death in Judaism, and since Jesus was a Jew who affirmed the authority if the Torah, it would be illogical to think He didn't believe it. (This is much more so for anyone who affirms Jesus is God, for as such He is the giver of the law)

3)Jesus defined all sexual activity outside of marriage as fornication.

4) Jesus defined marriage as between male and female

AMEN AND AMEN. Right on!

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In all honesty, most of us have done something worthy of death according to the OT law. I thank that while we may disagree with the morality of various acts, we should lean on mercy and justice, offering healing and reconciliation to all. We can pray with and counsel those who struggle with any given sin or temptation. Our mission is to bring a lost humanity to Jesus.

Undoubtedly. I'm at the top of the list. I wasn't raised in church and I've done so man y things I am barely comfortable talking about in the most general and vague ways. I admit my own sinfulness and guilt. I've been reading Numbers recently and I really have to ask myself hard questions. If I lived in that day would I have rebelled against Moses? Would I have caved to the pressure as Balaam? Would I fear the inhabitants of the land and spread doubt? Would I allow lust to overtake me in being exposed to lascivious pagan worship? Would I vent my frustration with God? Would I be ungrateful for His provision? Would I etc, etc. I'm sure I'd fail in some or many ways. I'm trying to learn for their mistakes as Paul tells us those things ate written for our admonition.

I certainly want mercy, justice, and reconciliation. But what I'm tired of ( and I know you're not doing this-I understand your POV) is having homosexuality shoved down my throat, and being told either accept it or your gospel us irrelevant. Either embrace it or your a filled with hate and bigotry. And that any time we declare the insanity of this lifestyle and its wickedness we have no love for those in it. We seek destruction not reconciliation. We're evil conservatives and fundamentalists.

All that's bunk and I'm sick if it. Most of the people who say those things can't put their money where their mouth is. Let's see how gracious they are when a repentant convicted sex offender visits their church. I've seen the way a lot of those who tout their own love and mercy treat people who don't fit their narrative.

So really I don't want to hear it. Its wicked, its sinful, and if the whole world accepts it it won't change the Word if God.

Rant over.

PS-absolutely NOT aimed at Aquila. Just venting in general.

[MawMaw]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I was not able to reply to what I wanted, which was this pastors assertion that Jesus was surrounded by a homosexual culture and never addressed/mentioned it.
I've heard this argument several times and I suggest this response:


1)That is TOTALLY false and disingenuous. Homosexuality perhaps was spread throughout the Roman Empire in the ancient world, but in Jewish culture it was an abomination. Any suggestion that Jesus was surrounded by homosexuals is unverifiable and quite unlikely.

2)since homosexuality was an abomination and punishable by death in Judaism, and since Jesus was a Jew who affirmed the authority if the Torah, it would be illogical to think He didn't believe it. (This is much more so for anyone who affirms Jesus is God, for as such He is the giver of the law)

3)Jesus defined all sexual activity outside of marriage as fornication.

4) Jesus defined marriage as between male and female

Totally agree!

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is only one instance wherein Jesus "might" have dealt with a homosexual. That is when the Centurion sought healing for his "servant" (Grk. "pais". The term "pais" was used throughout Rome to denote a young male servant who was often the lord of the home's lover. This wasn't uncommon among centurions who were in many cases forbidden to marry during their term of service to the Empire. But even this possibility is questionable.

Hmmm... here's what I found concerning "pais". It doesn't appear to be an overtly homosexual term, i.e. catamite:

NT:3816†pais, paido/s, o( (h() pais servant; child, son

1. Occurrences, meaning, and semantic field — 2. ‎pais qeou= ‎as a christological designation

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The word ‎pais ‎is found 24 times in the NT, but only in the writings of Luke (Gospel and Acts) and Matthew. It is a collective term for all members of a household subordinate to the master of the house and can have the corresponding meanings: In Matt 2:16; 17:18 par. Luke 2:43; Acts 20:12 ‎pais ‎designates a young boy, one younger than an adolescent; in Luke 8:51,54 a young girl is intended; Matt 21:15 groups children under pl. ‎pai=de$‎. In typical fashion Matt 8:6-13 par. Luke 7:2-10/John 4:46-53 interchanges ‎pais ‎with ‎doulos, ui(o$ ‎and ‎paidi/on‎. While Matthew consistently uses ‎pais, boy/child (of the centurion, cf. on the background Derrett 174f.), Luke interprets the ‎pais ‎as a ‎doulos ‎in order to express the nonfamilial relation between the one who commands and the one who obeys; John emphasizes ‎ui(o/s ‎as a generic term: It should be kept in mind that in Palestine the servant belonged to the family and the "son of the household" did not have to be a natural-born son (cf. Lohmeyer 3). In Luke 12:45 ‎pais ‎and ‎paidi/skai ‎refer to male and female household servants; Luke 15:26 appears not to distinguish between ‎pais ‎and ‎doulos‎, although here, too, belonging to the ‎oi@ko$ ‎is fundamental to the distinction between ‎pais ‎and ‎mi/sqios‎. In Matt 14:2 Herod expresses his opinion of Jesus to his ‎paides ‎("members of the court/counselors," i.e., his "cabinet"; cf. the ‎±a»¼ey hammele½‎/‎paides toubasile/ws ‎in 2 Sam 11:24; 15:15; cf. Riesener 150-59).

(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is only one instance wherein Jesus "might" have dealt with a homosexual. That is when the Centurion sought healing for his "servant" (Grk. "pais". The term "pais" was used throughout Rome to denote a young male servant who was often the lord of the home's lover. This wasn't uncommon among centurions who were in many cases forbidden to marry during their term of service to the Empire. But even this possibility is questionable.

Hi Bro,

The Apostles called Yeshua "pais" two times. Acts 4:27,30.

[Esaias]

Just because pervs call young sodomites "boy" doesn't mean every occurrence of the word "boy" means a young sodomite.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hmmm... here's what I found concerning "pais". It doesn't appear to be an overtly homosexual term, i.e. catamite:

NT:3816†pais, paido/s, o( (h() pais servant; child, son

1. Occurrences, meaning, and semantic field — 2. ‎pais qeou= ‎as a christological designation

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The word ‎pais ‎is found 24 times in the NT, but only in the writings of Luke (Gospel and Acts) and Matthew. It is a collective term for all members of a household subordinate to the master of the house and can have the corresponding meanings: In Matt 2:16; 17:18 par. Luke 2:43; Acts 20:12 ‎pais ‎designates a young boy, one younger than an adolescent; in Luke 8:51,54 a young girl is intended; Matt 21:15 groups children under pl. ‎pai=de$‎. In typical fashion Matt 8:6-13 par. Luke 7:2-10/John 4:46-53 interchanges ‎pais ‎with ‎doulos, ui(o$ ‎and ‎paidi/on‎. While Matthew consistently uses ‎pais, boy/child (of the centurion, cf. on the background Derrett 174f.), Luke interprets the ‎pais ‎as a ‎doulos ‎in order to express the nonfamilial relation between the one who commands and the one who obeys; John emphasizes ‎ui(o/s ‎as a generic term: It should be kept in mind that in Palestine the servant belonged to the family and the "son of the household" did not have to be a natural-born son (cf. Lohmeyer 3). In Luke 12:45 ‎pais ‎and ‎paidi/skai ‎refer to male and female household servants; Luke 15:26 appears not to distinguish between ‎pais ‎and ‎doulos‎, although here, too, belonging to the ‎oi@ko$ ‎is fundamental to the distinction between ‎pais ‎and ‎mi/sqios‎. In Matt 14:2 Herod expresses his opinion of Jesus to his ‎paides ‎("members of the court/counselors," i.e., his "cabinet"; cf. the ‎±a»¼ey hammele½‎/‎paides toubasile/ws ‎in 2 Sam 11:24; 15:15; cf. Riesener 150-59).

(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

I was referring to a common form of usage throughout the general culture.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Hi Bro,

The Apostles called Yeshua "pais" two times. Acts 4:27,30.

Amen. I'm not saying that the notion is absolute. I'm saying that scholars who have studied the words usage throughout extra-biblical literature note that it can denote a young male companion. Not that it does.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Just because pervs call young sodomites "boy" doesn't mean every occurrence of the word "boy" means a young sodomite.

Amen.