Interesting interpretation... Did Jesus speak of homosexuality?

[sarisataka]

Matthew 19:

4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."…

Which is an afirmation of traditional marriage. But later He says:

11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

interpreted to mean marriage is not for all men. And:

12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

Eunichs made by men refers to those physically mutilated. Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are those who choose celibacy. Eunichs from the womb can be interpreted in several ways. One interpretation obviously is those who are impotent. Another possible interpretation is men who are born not attracted to women.
If one is willing to accept these interpretations, Jesus is acknowledging homosexuality without condemnation. Instead he is giving leave that a homosexual is free to not join with a woman.
Is this not tacit acceptance of homosexuality?

[rug]

1. Gay men and women are not eunuchs.

Everything he said on the subject is here:

Matthew 22:34-40

34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together,
35 and one of them (a scholar of the law) tested him by asking,
36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
37 He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the greatest and the first commandment.
39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

That, interestingly, follows this:

23 On that day Sadducees approached him, saying that there is no resurrection. They put this question to him,
24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
26 The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
27 Finally the woman died.
28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.”
29 Jesus said to them in reply, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.
31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God,
32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

As Paul wrote in Galations 3:

27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I presume there is also no straight or gay in that context.

[sarisataka]

2. Eunuch is an imprecise interpretation

The original wording can translate into several modern words. I have never accepted the train of thought that the entire bible must be taken literally. Meaning a passage is more important than the precise words.

I fully agree with your other points. No exceptions were mentioned as to who is your neighbor or one with Christ.

[rug]

3. Welcome to the C & O Group!

[sarisataka]

4. Thank you

[ColesCountyDem]

5. I agree.

One must first consider the original language of the text, i.e., was it Septuagint Greek or was it in Koine Greek. As we know, the stylistic quality of the various books of the New Testament varies widely: contrast the elegant, Septuagint Greek in Luke with the less elegant and distinctly more 'modern', but less elegant Koine Greek found in John. The word 'eunuch', as you observe, is not a definitive translation. Further, to focus on but a single word in the passage(s), pointlessly distracts one from the entire message.

I shall cease to babble.



P.S.- I add my own welcome to the group. I seldom post here, but read the posts avidly.