Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Barry Tone on image #2189001

"[@TexasUberAlles":](/images/2189001#comment_8598733

)
 
Good, you understand those verses. As solid as those are, are you not considering them without all of their context? See this:


 
Matthew 5:17 - 20:


 
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."


 
The "Law and the Prophets" is the **"Old" Testament Section.** Modern "Christianity" loves to say "The old testament was fine back in its day, but it's not relevant now." Well, as shown above, Christ called that out even before it started; he'd not be happy with that "Christian" saying. He quoted the "Old" Testament Section (The Law and the Prophets) a lot, he KNEW the scriptures. He wouldn't obliterate his father's teaching for the "great god of money" that cannot save a person from many diseases that we don't even know about.


 
Since Christ didn't come to obliterate the "Old" Testament, Homosexuality never got an A-OK from Christ. He healed a "centurion's servant," ("[Luke 7:1-10,":](https://biblehub.com/bsb-strongs/luke/7.htm) "[Matthew 8:5-13,":](https://biblehub.com/bsb-strongs/matthew/8.htm) ) but if that servant **was really a homosexual lover** (as it has been suggested,) Jesus did heal him, but it's not "because he did it to 'OK' homosexuality." He said to pray for those who hate/abuse you ("[Luke 6:28,":](https://biblehub.com/luke/6-28.htm) ) and love your enemies ("[Luke 6:35":](https://biblehub.com/luke/6-35.htm) .) Considering this, the "Old Testament" Teaching to _*not be a homosexual_* ("[Leviticus 20:13":](https://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm) ) is still valid, as is the New Testament teaching in "[Romans 1:26":](https://biblehub.com/romans/1-26.htm) above,) Then again, I'm slightly scared at saying that "the Old Testament is still valid," because there are many Teachings in the Bible that I've _*not_* been following. However, this brings me to the next paragraph, in regards to interpretation (which I'm not to "act as king" over, to interpret to my own liking, against the text's intent. That's not how it works.)


 
The Bible in its entirety was originally supposed to be read in **Hebrew** from a **Hebraic Perspective,** which is quite alien to our "Modern" Western Greek and Roman based thinking. If you read it in English, you might get _*some_* of the perspective, but there's a lot that's underground to you which is not evident. For one, Words in Hebrew often are similar to each other if they have something in common, and this can lead to thinking in ways that are otherwise obscured. For example: what does Milk have in common with both a Bag, and Shaking? [spoiler]||Cheese.[/spoiler]|| The Hebraic words for Milk, a Bag, Shaking, and [spoiler]||Cheese[/spoiler]|| are linked. I've also heard (though not quite confirmed) that Hebrews thought in "Block Logic" (grouping thoughts together) instead of "Step Logic" (told in order of how things happened.) The Gospels do appear to be in "Block Logic," not 100% in the order of _*when_* things happened. This changes a lot of interpretation.


 
With all of that said, I know that there may be people who will bring up things in the "Old Testament" which would often be highly frowned upon today, and they'll ask "Are you doing all of these?" Well, no; I'm far from the most brushed up on this, but I at least recognize and admit it (which doesn't fulfill the whole, though I'm also not 100% certain of how to interpret everything in the Bible.) One of the things that people might bring up is "[Leviticus 20,":](https://biblehub.com/bsb-strongs/leviticus/20.htm) particularly verses 10-21, "Punishments for Sexual Immorality." For example, stoning to death an unfaithful and promiscuous daughter. TBH, this is **not** something I'm ready to comment on reliably, though I remember "[John 8,":](https://biblehub.com/bsb-strongs/john/8.htm) which speaks of Jesus sparing the adulterous woman from a stoning. "He who is sinless, let him cast the first stone." Well, _*does that_* imply that the whole lot of those who were accusing her [spoiler]_||*had sex with her?_[/spoiler]*|| Maybe they didn't, and they were just lying about it; I'm not certain. I wonder, is there more to Leviticus 20 in its original Hebraic form that I'm not aware of?

"@TexasUberAlles":/images/2189001#comment_8598733

Good, you understand those verses. As solid as those are, are you not considering them without all of their context? See this:

Matthew 5:17 - 20:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

The "Law and the Prophets" is the *"Old" Testament Section.* Modern "Christianity" loves to say "The old testament was fine back in its day, but it's not relevant now." Well, as shown above, Christ called that out even before it started; he'd not be happy with that "Christian" saying. He quoted the "Old" Testament Section (The Law and the Prophets) a lot, he KNEW the scriptures. He wouldn't obliterate his father's teaching for the "great god of money" that cannot save a person from many diseases that we don't even know about.

Since Christ didn't come to obliterate the "Old" Testament, Homosexuality never got an A-OK from Christ. He healed a "centurion's servant," ("Luke 7:1-10,":https://biblehub.com/bsb-strongs/luke/7.htm "Matthew 8:5-13,":https://biblehub.com/bsb-strongs/matthew/8.htm ) but if that servant *was really a homosexual lover* (as it has been suggested,) Jesus did heal him, but it's not "because he did it to 'OK' homosexuality." He said to pray for those who hate/abuse you ("Luke 6:28,":https://biblehub.com/luke/6-28.htm ) and love your enemies ("Luke 6:35":https://biblehub.com/luke/6-35.htm .) Considering this, the "Old Testament" Teaching to _not be a homosexual_ ("Leviticus 20:13":https://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm ) is still valid, as is the New Testament teaching in "Romans 1:26":https://biblehub.com/romans/1-26.htm above,) Then again, I'm slightly scared at saying that "the Old Testament is still valid," because there are many Teachings in the Bible that I've _not_ been following. However, this brings me to the next paragraph, in regards to interpretation (which I'm not to "act as king" over, to interpret to my own liking. That's not how it works.)

The Bible in its entirety was originally supposed to be read in *Hebrew* from a *Hebraic Perspective,* which is quite alien to our "Modern" Western Greek and Roman based thinking. If you read it in English, you might get _some_ of the perspective, but there's a lot that's underground to you which is not evident. For one, Words in Hebrew often are similar to each other if they have something in common, and this can lead to thinking in ways that are otherwise obscured. For example: what does Milk have in common with both a Bag, and Shaking? [spoiler]Cheese.[/spoiler] The Hebraic words for Milk, a Bag, Shaking, and [spoiler]Cheese[/spoiler] are linked. I've also heard (though not quite confirmed) that Hebrews thought in "Block Logic" (grouping thoughts together) instead of "Step Logic" (told in order of how things happened.) The Gospels do appear to be in "Block Logic," not 100% in the order of _when_ things happened. This changes a lot of interpretation.

With all of that said, I know that there may be people who will bring up things in the "Old Testament" which would often be highly frowned upon today, and they'll ask "Are you doing all of these?" Well, no; I'm far from the most brushed up on this, but I at least recognize and admit it (which doesn't fulfill the whole, though I'm also not 100% certain of how to interpret everything in the Bible.) One of the things that people might bring up is "Leviticus 20,":https://biblehub.com/bsb-strongs/leviticus/20.htm particularly verses 10-21, "Punishments for Sexual Immorality." For example, stoning to death an unfaithful and promiscuous daughter. TBH, this is *not* something I'm ready to comment on reliably, though I remember "John 8,":https://biblehub.com/bsb-strongs/john/8.htm which speaks of Jesus sparing the adulterous woman from a stoning. "He who is sinless, let him cast the first stone." Well, _does that_ imply that the whole lot of those who were accusing her [spoiler]_had sex with her?_[/spoiler] Maybe they didn't, and they were just lying about it; I'm not certain. I wonder, is there more to Leviticus 20 in its original Hebraic form that I'm not aware of?