yesos mengajarkan homoseksualitas

For the last 1,900 years, Christianity had been
assuming that ancient Jewish law was divided into two categories:
morality and ritual. The historical record documents that this simply
wasn’t so. Christianity had been interpreting Jesus’ teachings based on
an erroneous assumption.
The ancient Jewish nation didn’t divide the commandments of their
law into ‘morality’ and ‘ritual.’ On the contrary! They divided the
commandments of their law into Justices and Jobs:

• Justices were all the commandments based on “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
  
• Jobs were all the rest (such as ritual and sexual taboos).
  

As eminent scholars on ancient Jewish law attest:

“all of the commandments between man and man are included in this precept of loving one’s neighbor.”—Pinchas Horowitz

“forbidden sexual acts are classified as transgressions between man and God.”—Maimonides

The commandments between man and man were the Justices. Justices
were based on the precept, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The
commandments between man and God were the Jobs. Jobs included all
ritual requirements and sexual taboos. The following are examples of the ancient Justices and Jobs:

Justices (Love your neighbor)	Jobs (Ritual and sexual taboos)
Do not murder	Do not eat shellfish
Do not steal	Do not wear garments made out of two fabrics
Do not lie	Men with genital injuries cannot enter the congregation
Do not rape	Do not engage in homosexual intercourse
Do not commit adultery	Do not have sex with your wife during her menstrual cycle

In the first century, the precept “Love your neighbor as yourself”
designated the Justices—the group of commandments that didn’t include
the prohibition on homosexuality. Christianity overlooked a very
important pattern regarding the New Testament’s use of this precept.
Jesus, Paul, and James all have teachings in which they:

• Only list Justices, and
  
• Cite the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
  

Consider the following teaching of Jesus:

And someone came to Jesus and said, “Teacher, which good thing must I do that I may have eternal life?”

But he answered him, “Why are you asking me about what is good?
There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter into that life,
keep the commandments.”

The man said to him, “Which ones?”

And Jesus said, “Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie, honor your father and mother—love your neighbor as yourself.”

Notice that Jesus:

• Only listed Justices, and
  
• Cited the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
  

Jesus referenced the Justices group of commandments that was
part and parcel of his culture. And his message was profound. When the
man asked which commandments he must follow to inherit eternal life,
Jesus said, “Only the Justices.” All the Jobs, including the
prohibition on homosexuality, were deliberately and purposely excluded.

Consider the following teaching of Paul.

He who loves others has fulfilled the Law because “don’t commit
adultery,” “don’t murder,” “don’t steal,” “don’t covet,” and if there is
any other commandment it is summed up in these words: “Love your
neighbor as yourself.”

Notice that Paul:

• Only listed Justices, and
  
• Cited the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
  
  

Paul referenced the Justices group of commandments that was
part and parcel of his culture. And his message was profound: Anyone
who loves others fulfills the entire Law because only the Justices are the Law. None of the Jobs, including the prohibition on homosexuality, were part of the law.

Consider the following teaching of James:

If you are fulfilling the King’s law according to scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are behaving well. But if you are showing partiality based on personal appearances, you are committing sin, and are indicted under the Law as lawbreakers.

For anyone who keeps the whole law, but is at fault on one count, has turned guilty on all counts. He who said “Do not commit adultery” also said “Do not murder.” If you are not going to commit adultery, but are going to murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Speak and act like people who are about to be judged by the Law of
Freedom; for judgment without compassion will be for the one who has not
shown compassion. Compassion triumphs over judgment.

Notice that James:

• Only listed Justices, and
  
• Cited the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
  

James referenced the Justices group of commandments that was
part and parcel of his culture. James taught that everyone will be
judged by the Justices (what he called ’the Law of Freedom’).
Therefore, he concluded that everyone who treats others compassionately
will triumph on judgment day.

Here we have an undeniable pattern! Jesus, Paul, and James:

• Only listed Justices, and
  
• Cited the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
  

Somehow Christianity overlooked this all-important pattern.
Jesus, Paul, and James each taught about the Justices—the group of
commandments that didn’t include the prohibition on homosexuality. And
each, in their own particular way, taught that the Justices were the
entirety of Christian obligation!

Jesus told the rich young ruler that everyone who keeps the Justices will inherit eternal life.

Paul taught that everyone who keeps the Justices fulfills the entire Law.

James taught that everyone who keeps the Justices will triumph on judgment day.

Jesus, Paul, and James all taught that only the Justices matter
when it comes to salvation and judgment. Yet, for the last 1,900
years, Christianity was unaware of this. Lack of knowledge of the
Justices and Jobs caused Christianity to miss Jesus’, Paul’s, and James’
entire point.


Christianity originally began as a sect within Judaism, at a time
when their law was divided into Justices and Jobs. The writings of
Justin Martyr show that when the Gentiles dominated the Faith in the
second century, they brought with them the false assumption that the law
was divided into morality and ritual. Incredibly, this false
assumption persisted for the next 1,900 years.



Jesus on Homosexuality fully documents Christianity’s
1,900-year-old error. More importantly, it presents the necessary
historical writings for the Church to reclaim her roots, should she
decide to do so. (A free download of Jesus on Homosexuality is available below.)

Conclusion:

• The ancient Jews divided their law into two groups: Justices and Jobs.
  
• The prohibition against homosexuality was a Job.
  
• Jesus repeatedly taught that only the Justices matter when it comes to salvation and judgment.
  

Jesus taught five times that only the Justices matter. (See Jesus on Homosexuality for references.) Paul taught three times that only the Justices matter. (For more on Paul click here.) Historical reality was very different than religious scholars had previously thought.















Responding to the Critics



Objection: I don’t see any difference between the
“Justices/Jobs” and “ritual/morality.” Aren’t they both saying the same
thing? Isn’t this much ado about nothing? (J. Jackson)

The Response

‘Morality’ simply wasn’t the original criteria for dividing the
commandments. The ancient Jews thought of the commandments in terms of
‘obligations to neighbor’ and ‘obligations to God.’ Rape violated
the Mosaic obligation to neighbor; whereas homosexuality violated the
Mosaic obligation to God. Therefore they were classified in two entirely
different categories.


It is simply a historical fact that all sexual taboos were considered violations of Mosaic obligations to God:

“forbidden sexual acts are classified as transgressions between man and God.”—Maimonides

Also:

“The punishment for [false] measures is more severe than the punishment for illicit sexual relations, for the latter is between man and God, whereas the former is between man and his fellow.”—Maimonides

Maimonides was one of history’s most prolific expositors of ancient
Jewish law. His legal expositions are still studied and referenced
today. Another Jewish scholar of Maimonides’ caliber was Rabbi Pinchas.
His explanation of ancient Jewish law is also studied and referenced
today. He confirms that all the Justices (legal obligations to man)
were delineated by the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself”:

“all of the commandments between man and man are included in this precept of loving one’s neighbor.”—Rabbi Pinchas

The Jews of Jesus' day used this precept to determine which
commandments were Justices. The rest, including the prohibition on
homosexuality, were Jobs. That’s why modern Christian scholars, such as
E P Sanders, now note that sexual prohibitions that “do not involve
the abuse of another person, but are more in the nature of taboos” were
Jobs, not Justices. (The footnotes in chapter one include references for these quotes, as well as additional documentation from other sources.)

During Jesus’ day, the Justices and Jobs separated morality into
two categories. Moral prohibitions involving the abuse of another were
Justices. Moral prohibitions that didn’t abuse others were Jobs.
Second century Christian Gentiles wrongly assumed that morality
comprised one indivisible group during Jesus’ day. Therefore, they
proceeded to misinterpret Jesus’ teachings based on this erroneous
assumption.

The Church truly did get the division wrong for 1,900 years, and
it’s high time that we finally correct the error. This is crucial
because Jesus’ most important teachings were structured around the
division that existed during his day. Therefore, it is impossible to
fully grasp his message without first understanding the Justices and
Jobs themselves.

* * * * *
Objection: It’s helpful that leading Jewish and Christian
scholars lend credence to Wood’s ancient division of Jewish law. But
Jesus and Paul lived during the first century. Does any first century
source confirm this? (J. Jackson)

The Response

In a word... yes. The writings of Philo Judaeus (20 BCE –
50 CE) document that the division was delineated based on love of
neighbor (Decalogue 108-110) and that holiness purity issues were therefore classified as commandments between man and God. (Special Laws 2.63) Thus, both
facts are attested in a first century source, a source that even
slightly predates Jesus and Paul. This is the historical setting in
which Jesus and Paul formulated their messages. Therefore, this is the
historical setting one must know in order to interpret them correctly.

* * * * *


Objection: Paul wrote that no homosexual shall enter God’s kingdom in
1 Corinthians (see also 1 Timothy). The author’s arguments may work
well with people who don’t know the Bible, but not with me. (J. Welker)


The Response
Paul’s letters were written in Greek, not English. In the Greek,
Paul condemned those who have sex with young boys. That is a violation
of the Justices. Conventional translations have sadly taken a violation
of the Justices and rewritten it as a violation of the Jobs.


Paul used the Greek word arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians and 1
Timothy. Even leading conservative anti-homosexual authors must
concede the historical use of this word:

“Given Sib. Or. 3.185-87 (ca. 165-45 B.E.), the author
[of Sib. Or.] may indeed have had in mind homosexual intercourse with
call boys: ‘Male will have intercourse with male and they will set boys in houses of illfame’”—Dr. Robert Gagnon [Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 5802-5804). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.]

Gagnon further concedes that arsenokoitai referred to sex with a young boy in Aristides’ Apology (ca. 125-45 C.E.):

“Chapter 9 narrates the sexual escapades of Zeus who
had sex with many women (human and divine) and carried off the handsome
shepherd boy Ganymede to be his ‘beloved’; hence the two charges of adultery and arsenokoitias.”— Dr. Robert Gagnon [Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 5843-5845). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.]

The earliest documents consistently used arsenokoitai in
reference to sex with young boys. Gagnon, however, argues that Paul
must have used a broader meaning than that of his near contemporaries.
Yet, Romans 13:8-9, Galatians 5:14, and Galatians 6:2 all beg to differ.
In all of these passages, Paul taught that the Justices alone are the entire Law. Gagnon’s assumption of a broader definition is based on the assumption that Paul contradicted himself!


So here’s the situation: The historical meaning of the word fully
maintains Paul’s consistency. However, Gagnon argues for a
non-historical meaning that causes Paul to contradict himself! The
anti-homosexual conservatives grasp at any straw to rewrite the Biblical
text—even at the expense of rejecting the historical record and making
Paul appear to repudiate his very own teachings in the process. This
torturing of the Biblical text needs to finally come to an end.

Paul used arsenokoitai in the same way as his near
contemporaries did—to condemn the unjust, disgusting practice of having
sex with young boys. (Sex with young boys was as common as sex with
women during Paul’s day.)

In Paul on Homosexuality,
Michael Wood walks the reader through first century writings and
archaeology, and then applies the historical record to Paul's letters.
In the end, we find that Paul dutifully toed the line when it came to
the Justices and Jobs. Paul repeatedly taught that only the Justices
are the law; the Jobs are not. It therefore would have been impossible for him to write that no homosexual can enter God’s kingdom, and the actual meanings of the Greek words confirm this.


The discovery of the Justices and Jobs is destined to finally awaken Christianity to the reality that neither Jesus nor Paul would have condemned committed, consensual, adult LGBT relationships. This is wonderful news for all advocates of equality.



* * * * *

Objection: Michael Wood makes an argument from silence. Frankly,
arguments from silence are the kind of academics you expect from
stones. Meaning of course, that they are dense and go nowhere on their
own.


If Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, and he didn't.
Then Jesus said nothing on homosexuality. No contest. No matter how
much we want him to say something on homosexuality there is nothing
there. All anyone can do is speculate and no matter how you do that you
are putting words into Jesus mouth which Jesus did not say.—(Rev. John)
The Response
Moses’ law contains two commandments about homosexuality. Jesus
wasn’t silent or ambiguous about which commandments remain and which
one’s don’t. Right?

The question of whether the book argues from silence is not open to
subjective debate. The book either argues from silence or it doesn’t:

• If Jesus never specified which commandments remain and which one’s don’t, then he was silent on the issue of homosexuality.
  
• If Jesus specified which commandments remain and which one’s don’t, then he wasn’t silent on the issue of homosexuality. Period.
  

This is what is so exciting about the Justices and Jobs. For it is they that inform us that Jesus did specify
which commandments remain and which ones don’t. Hence, they inform us,
for the first time in 1,900 years, that Jesus wasn’t silent about
homosexuality after all!


* * * * *

Objection: Jesus condemned sexual immorality which includes
engaging in prostitution. Prostitution doesn’t fall under the "Love
your neighbor" commands. Doesn’t this refute the whole premise of the
book? (J. Laugesen)