"If it were that important, Jesus would have mentioned it..."
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:48 am
A couple weeks ago a friend of mine and I were just hanging out, chatting about stuff, and at one point the subject of homosexuality came up. I expressed my annoyance at how schools and even children's programming now (I'm looking at you, Disney) are normalizing sinful behaviors.
He said that he got where I was coming from, but that from his point of view, it's not such a big deal. After all, in the Bible, Jesus never mentions it directly, so it must not be such a big deal, right?
I let that comment go, because it was all p art of a larger discussion I was eager to get back to, but I think back on it and I wish I'd challenged that assertion then and there. Why? Because it's an absurd bit of sophistry.
If anybody tells you that homosexuality can't be that big a deal because the Scriptures don't record Jesus actually, specifically saying it's a sin, they're being foolish and heretical. It frankly blows my mind that anybody says something like that with a straight face.
It's true that none of the 4 Gospels or the book of Acts mention Jesus specifically condemning the practice. But what about in Leviticus 18:22?
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Who is the speaker there? Oh, wait. That would be the Lord. He said it there. Is there some reason it needed repeating? Besides, it's not like the Gospels are a complete and exhaustive chronicle of everything Jesus said and did. It says so right in St. John 21:25:
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
My take on it is that whoever was putting together the 4 Gospels probably didn't feel the need to repeat things that were already in older works, and tended to focus on the new doctrines presented by the Savior. After all, this is the classical period. Paper and ink weren't exactly cheap.
Now, my friend did acknowledge that Paul did address the matter in his letters, but apparently that wasn't enough. Why? Paul was an authority on doctrine. He was an Apostle. He directly mentioned it several times. Is that not enough? Are we saying that Paul presented false teachings? Would Jesus have had to repeat absolutely every single thing Paul said in order for us to take him at his word?
That would kinda blow away the need for Paul's letters, doesn't it?
No, it's a weak argument but sadly I've heard it several times over the years from several people. Don't be mislead by it. Use your critical thinking.
He said that he got where I was coming from, but that from his point of view, it's not such a big deal. After all, in the Bible, Jesus never mentions it directly, so it must not be such a big deal, right?
I let that comment go, because it was all p art of a larger discussion I was eager to get back to, but I think back on it and I wish I'd challenged that assertion then and there. Why? Because it's an absurd bit of sophistry.
If anybody tells you that homosexuality can't be that big a deal because the Scriptures don't record Jesus actually, specifically saying it's a sin, they're being foolish and heretical. It frankly blows my mind that anybody says something like that with a straight face.
It's true that none of the 4 Gospels or the book of Acts mention Jesus specifically condemning the practice. But what about in Leviticus 18:22?
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Who is the speaker there? Oh, wait. That would be the Lord. He said it there. Is there some reason it needed repeating? Besides, it's not like the Gospels are a complete and exhaustive chronicle of everything Jesus said and did. It says so right in St. John 21:25:
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
My take on it is that whoever was putting together the 4 Gospels probably didn't feel the need to repeat things that were already in older works, and tended to focus on the new doctrines presented by the Savior. After all, this is the classical period. Paper and ink weren't exactly cheap.
Now, my friend did acknowledge that Paul did address the matter in his letters, but apparently that wasn't enough. Why? Paul was an authority on doctrine. He was an Apostle. He directly mentioned it several times. Is that not enough? Are we saying that Paul presented false teachings? Would Jesus have had to repeat absolutely every single thing Paul said in order for us to take him at his word?
That would kinda blow away the need for Paul's letters, doesn't it?
No, it's a weak argument but sadly I've heard it several times over the years from several people. Don't be mislead by it. Use your critical thinking.