If I understand you correctly, it would mean that the stars would fall, the moon turn to blood, the sun no longer give it’s light would( in my opinion ) there would be no future, once the sun lost it’s light, the entire earth would no longer be able to sustain life! And it was a question of the Apostles as to the worlds end not just a covenant.
Jesus is quoted as saying he would RETURN in his father’s glory with his angels while some of them standing there were still alive.. It didn’t happen
I took a religion class in college. The teacher gave us something to read about these verses that argued that these were passive-aggressive ways to counter these attacks. The argument went (from memory…. I’m sure someone will be able to find the actual text) that the “turn the other cheek” part forced them to use a closed fist for the second blow, instead of an open hand, something that forced them to treat you as a combatant instead of just someone who needed to be bitch-slapped. The second part had something to do with stripping naked to embarrass them. The third part would make them get in trouble, since the Romans had strict laws about how much they could force non-Romans to do, and 1 mile was the most they could force someone to haul their stuff.
There is nothing in the bible supporting the pro-life/anti-abortion position. Even the “eye for an eye….” verse makes it clear that the life of the fetus is worth some money, but not a life.
Not in the New Testament, they aren’t.
If memory serves me right I think Paul had some words like men doing bad things with men. I would have to read it once a gain to be certain.
The term “Peterist” makes me giggle.
I believe you’re referring to a mistranslation of malakos or arsenokoites. Google them and you’ll find plenty about it.
I daresay some would (re-)criminalize adultery.
Here is a longwinded explanation of what I was talking about having read in a religion class about explanations for “Turn the other cheek, et al.” http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm
No, it isn’t. At most, it is an unfairly broad brush. But there are many RRs – not all, perhaps – who do indeed want to impose. See Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism.
Then again, there are probably still some deeply and traditionally religious Americans who simply avoid politics entirely, as an occasion of sin and a thing of this world. I’ve never read a Chick tract with even an implicit message of “Vote for X,” unless X be Jesus.
But those religious conservatives who are politically engaged are not, by and large, very social-libertarian in their politics. The Constitution Party certainly is not.
Yes, there are.
Romans 1:26-27:
1 Cor 6:9-10:
1 Tim 1:8-11:
Let’s talk about these. Arsenokoites appears in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. Malakos appears in 1 Cor 6:9.
So even if those words are mistranslated and don’t refer to homosexual acts – a claim of which I’m dubious – they don’t appear in Romans 1:26-27. So Christians are still left with that provision, which condemns homosexual acts.
As I understand it (and please correct me if I’m wrong), the argument goes that arsenokoites refers – not to “men who have sex with men” – but to pederasty, homosexual prostitution, or anal sex (depending on who is arguing for an alternate definition).
However, Greek dictionaries and lexicons define arsenkokoites to mean “homosexual sex.” It is thought to be a compound of “arsen” (meaning “male”) and koite (meaning “bed”), and literally means “one who goes to bed with a male.”
As for malakos, the argument (and again, correct me if I’m wrong)is that it refers – not to “the effeminate” or “the homosexual” – but to the effeminate but not necessarily homosexual, or to temple boy prostitutes.
I’m naturally inclined to agree with this interpretation, since it echoes my own gut instincts about Biblical prohibitions on homosexual acts: that they’re actually condemning practices associated with other, competing religions of the time. However, on an intellectual level, I have to admit that I find this definition unconvincing.
Most scholars apparently agree. Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries define “malakos” to mean “the passive partner in a male homosexual relationship.”
So these aren’t generally understood to be mistranslations. There are competing theories, but the theories themselves are not generally accepted among the scholarly community (to say nothing of the Christian community).
If one would take the NT literally one could say Jesus was gay, John called himself the Apostle that Jesus loved, In our day if one says; "Here is the man/woman I love one could think they are gay.
Romans 1:26 - 27 seem to condemn homosexuality when taken out of context. Let’s look at the whole thing:
Idolatry is the sin here. Changing their sexual orientation is the punishment. (Quite the creative punishment, you’d have to admit. Although God has a history of creative punishments.) With the proper context, it’s pretty clear that the men in vs. 27 were heterosexual until God flipped the switch on them.
As far as malakos and arsenokoites, yeah, pretty much what Age Quod Agis said. We don’t really know what those words mean, and we could spend hours debating whether malakos means soft, weak, effeminite, or wanker. And we could spend hours going over the handful of other recorded uses of arsenokoites to try to glean some context.
This has all been done before. I still maintain that simply translating both of these words as “homosexual” is incorrect and based on the culture at the time that these translations were made.
In truth they could not have known God, God is unknowable! The only evidence we have is the words of other human beings. One can say they believe God did or said something but it is in reality that it is their words not any God’s word.
Everything written in history etc. also is the work of humans, and some of it is true some not.
Why didn’t Jesus return in his father’s glory while some of his listeners were still alive? It surely would have been recorded.
According to Matthew, Jesus was answering as to when the world would end. Jesus is quoted as saying" that generation" would not pass away until all was accomplished". The stars are sort of in a state of constant falling, The sun did not lose it’s light the moon didn’t turn to blood etc. any more than a cloudy day now. I guess one can make of it as they wish. As I see it; it was an after thought of an answer when the generation hadn’t ended, and people questioned it.