Paul was very specific in his language. He was well aware of legalese. He knew the Old Testament very well. He was thoroughly trained by the Pharisee, Gamaliel, one of the leading Pharisees if not the leading Pharisaic teacher of the day, in fact. Paul went into great detail about his thinking concerning circumcision and what he called "the law." He was referring to the Law of Moses. Now, what he ended up talking about was what is referred to in the Old Testament as circumcising the heart. Jesus made Paul think harder – to question all that Paul had been doing and why. That's why Paul connected the dots to circumcising the heart. Paul saw more light on account of Jesus – much greater light than that which Paul had received from Gamaliel.
What didn't happen in this process was Paul lowering the concept of sin but rather moving closer to the perfect harmlessness shown forth by Jesus Christ, who told us to be as harmless as doves.
Moses is the one who explicitly said that homosexuality is verboten (even confusion meriting instant capital punishment). Paul argued that uncircumcised Gentiles be accepted into the body of Christ by the Christian Church. It would be a terrible stretch to suggest that Paul was claiming that the end of "the law" meant the acceptability of homosexuality, especially in light of the fact that it is not harmless as a dove but demonstrably damaging (see: "Homosexuals: What they ignore"). Only those of hyper-antinomianism, headed in the direction of the ancient Gnostics who believed defiling the flesh was its denunciation and would lift the soul to Heaven, would believe that harmful homosexuality is liberated/hedonistic Christianity. There is no such thing as hedonistic Christianity.
Also consider that if there were no "law" according to Paul, Paul would not have listed any sins at all.
If the brothers in a hugely important conference in Jerusalem headed up by James argued so over circumcision and blood in meat and so forth, who in his or her right mind would suggest that they would open doors to homosexuals without a clear debate on the record? It's a ridiculous notion.
Also, Peter lived with Jesus and the other Apostles. They continued practicing the Torah Judaism of the day. They did follow Jesus who enhanced the law – raised the standard. He raised it so high that his own disciples wondered how anyone could enter Heaven. However, here come the homosexuals lowering the threshold down, down, down. It's obvious where that's coming from. It's from darkness.
Don't forget how James pressed Paul hard upon Paul's visit to Jerusalem clearly to demonstrate to the naysayer Jewish Christians and others that Paul still kept the ritual laws. Paul immediately fell right into line with James' request — hardly in keeping with one who would denounce Moses' view that homosexuality was a sin.
Remember that Jesus didn't destroy the law but fulfilled it when he raised, not lowered, the standard. He didn't stone people, but he did still tell them to go and sin no more.
He was murdered for raising, not lowering, the standard. He didn't open the door to other forms of harm (homosexuality) while closing it to stoning.
I add this paragraph as an update:
Also, where does it say verbatim in the Bible, "Thou shalt not have sexual intercourse with a dead body" (necrophilia) or words to that effect; or, is it understood from the whole context that such an act would be a grave error? Is the list of sins in the Bible all-inclusive, or is it written as a list where the reader is to understand that sins are not limited to the list? Did Paul include in any of his lists that immediate siblings are not to have sex with each other (one form of incest), or did he rely upon Moses who had already said it? Why then are those who are pro-homosexuality insisting that Jesus and Paul had to use a term that those who are pro-homosexuality relate directly and exclusively to homosexuality? Accordingly, the terms of Paul and Jesus may not have any additional connotations to the pro-homosexuality crowd.
I just posted a link to this post on Facebook with the following Intro. I thought it might help to clarify a bit more here:
The post-title should be self-explanatory. In the post, I put forward an argument never made before by anyone. As they say in journalism, you heard it here first.
Some of the text deals with matters that may be out of reach for those not very well-versed in the Bible; however, it's worth reading including by those who think twisting a word here or there in the New Testament and especially concerning Paul is going to get them by.
It was something I dashed off to aid a friend who is in a debate on the matter of Paul and homosexuality. That debate has boiled down to the same points being repeated around by pro-homosexuals in their attempt to suggest that Jesus did not (or at least possibly did not) consider homosexuality a sin. Their position is utterly ridiculous as ought to be perfectly clear from a quick reading of my short post.
Lastly, some my take this as bragging. It is not. I am repenting and repentant. Credit goes to the Holy Spirit. I know that is difficult for some (seemingly impossible) to comprehend, but they need to admit that there are things they don't know. I would not have come to say what I have here in this post were it not for the movement of the Holy Spirit.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)