I reply to a currently featured thread that Matthew 22:30 not related to homosexuality at all.
Homosexuality is not a signal of end times, not in any context that I can find. Even if you believe Jesus as a man returns physically, like aa one single man and that the righteous are each resurrected as individuals; it still does not make sense to say that homosexuality signals anything based upon the gospel of Matthew. It is irrelevant. Why is buying and selling houses mentioned and marrying and being given in marriage? You have to look up the history of these and why they have been associated, in scripture, with violence and oppression; such as in the time of Ezekiel and Malachi. Buying and selling were not outlawed, but the buying and selling were used callously and oppressively. Marriage contracts were manipulated (at times) into subjugating women in a nation that was supposedy about freedom. It was somewhat like the problem which occurred here in the USA, land of the free, where people were enslaved permanently through duplicitous legal precedents and became a slave class.
This is hinted at in a post here mentioning the context of marriage in Israel in the times Jesus, as a man and prophet, lives:
At the time it seemed like a rabbit trail, so I didn't go into disputing the context. I think it is reasonable to now; since there has been a featured thread on the topic. I don't think many people hold this position, but someone has suggested that the reason Jesus doesn't think marriage is permitted at the resurrection is that it would be homosexual. This seems pretty far fetched and ignores the context.
Homosexuality is not a signal of end times, not in any context that I can find. Even if you believe Jesus as a man returns physically, like aa one single man and that the righteous are each resurrected as individuals; it still does not make sense to say that homosexuality signals anything based upon the gospel of Matthew. It is irrelevant. Why is buying and selling houses mentioned and marrying and being given in marriage? You have to look up the history of these and why they have been associated, in scripture, with violence and oppression; such as in the time of Ezekiel and Malachi. Buying and selling were not outlawed, but the buying and selling were used callously and oppressively. Marriage contracts were manipulated (at times) into subjugating women in a nation that was supposedy about freedom. It was somewhat like the problem which occurred here in the USA, land of the free, where people were enslaved permanently through duplicitous legal precedents and became a slave class.
This is hinted at in a post here mentioning the context of marriage in Israel in the times Jesus, as a man and prophet, lives:
Normally marriage is to be encouraged, however sometimes in Israel's history it has been used to enslave women through slick and treacherous contracts. This was a problem Israel had after the return from Babylon but also at other times. In a way it was bad like the housing bubble was bad when we were buying and selling houses. Buying or selling a house is not evil, nor is getting married evil. Its how you do it and whether you are doing evil. The problem was that marriage became a way to entrap women. Technically the men weren't doing anything illegal, but they were behaving unethically.
Gays in ancient Israel don't marry for the simple reason that marriage contracts are about reproductive rights. These contracts are not relevant between males. Its not like in modern times where you get a different tax structure and benefits etc. out of a marriage.
At the time it seemed like a rabbit trail, so I didn't go into disputing the context. I think it is reasonable to now; since there has been a featured thread on the topic. I don't think many people hold this position, but someone has suggested that the reason Jesus doesn't think marriage is permitted at the resurrection is that it would be homosexual. This seems pretty far fetched and ignores the context.