Christians FOR Gay Marriage... they are and always have been

originally posted by: Rex282
In Matthew 5 Yahoshua clearly stated he was speaking of “the law” and right after that explained what the the law was and it wasn’t the law of men of old( Moses) as the Jews or the present day Christians believe at all.

“You have heard that it was said by men of old , You shall not commit adultery:BUT I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart”.

That is not the law of Moses and neither are any of the other things he said in this discourse.He was stating what the “law” really was.The religious perceive the law as rules and regulations to be followed like an instruction manual to “interpret” how they choose but use ZERO reason because they seek to justify their own perversion.Many of the religious believe committing adultery is against the law but it is okay(natural) to “lust” as long as you don’t do and yet Yahoshua will completely disagree with them.The religious want a “law” that they can manipulate to fit their agenda yet Yahoshua says that is not how the law is perfected(fulfilled.).

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”

Yahoshua said he came to “fulfill” the law and the prophets.The religious believe this is “the bible”(when they have no idea what was written).The word fulfill is translated from the Greek word pleroo which means to make complete to consummate to perfect.Yahoshua did not say the “law and the prophets were perfected he said the opposite and then preceded to state why.

The fact is Christianity is COMPLETELY blind to facts like these.Yahoshua clearly stated those who “relax” (accept the imperfections) and teaches those unfulfilled laws will be called the least in the kingdom of the heavens and they are akin to the scribes and pharisees(who pervert the true law by their religious beliefs) which is EXACTLY what Christianity has done …but even more so!!.They extrapolate scriptures and pervert them into the doctrines of men then say “Jesus said it”.That is the worst perversion possible.

This is the kind of foolishness many Christians propagate. They abuse the scriptures to condemn others when it is THEM Yahoshua is speaking of as being perverts!Yahoshua clearly stated who these ‘Christians” were when he warned the disciples.

“Do not be deceived. For MANY will come in my name and say they are christ and will deceive many”.

That is as clear and concise statement of the coming of Christianity ever stated YET Christianity believes it’s about someone else!The fact is ....it is Christianity that “teaches” false doctrine and perverts the gospel of Yahoshua.History has proven over and over again the perverse nature of Christianity yet they are blind to it and believe THEY ALONE are the forgiven (but are not free at all!) and “saved” ones and everyone else is going to hell!! That is the ultimate perversion and is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit that will not be forgiven (which means freed from bondage) in this age nor the next.

Many Christians prove this fact of their extreme perversion over and over again. Some of those Christians are writing on this thread.They have no truthful answers to these statements made by Yahoshua except their Christian rhetoric which is nothing more than the perversion of truth.

There are lots of little things that you post that I don't see eye to eye with, and sometimes you post ideas that I take issue with, but mostly, I agree with everything you have to say, if not technically, in spirit. I always appreciate your posts, and if I see them they always get a star from me, for what that's worth.

I quoted your whole dialog here, because it worthy of a "requote".
Not worth any debate.

a reply to: windword

So, why don't you Christians honor ALL of the Levitical laws? Why are you cherry picking which one you'll choose to follow/enforce and which one's you'll choose to discard?

You are a confused person . All Hebrew 613 commands are not meant for everyone except the Hebrews and then some for only that era. You have civil law as well as dietary law as well as religious law. The law in which was given on the Mt. Sinai is the universal law which includes the seven Noahic laws given to all men long before the Sinai convention. This is the reference to the word law. Not the command to not drink blood which is a dietary law.

1 Do not deny God.
2 Do not blaspheme God.
3 Do not murder.
4 Do not engage in incest, adultery, pederasty or bestiality, (8) as well as homosexual relations. (9) and (10
5 Do not steal.
6 Do not eat of a live animal.
7 Establish courts/legal system to ensure law and obedience.

The seven Noahide laws were actually commands to Adam and Eve and through Shem were then repeatedly given to the sanctified of the nations. The people became so corrupt and discarded these laws up to the days of Moses. It was then that God gave the Hebrews these seven laws plus three more as a covenant. A gentile is not compelled to honor the Sinai convention because it entails so many other civil and dietary laws which are contrary to their own cultures but these other cultures are obligated by the laws of Noah and yet are permitted to have their own civil laws to govern their people.

Now full circle . If you are not a follower of Moses' covenant you are still obligated to obey the basic seven Noahide laws of humanity. If one refuses both then that is his or her prerogative and is regarded as knowingly sinning.

The reason that I listed the Levitical law was that it is actually the law of God given to Adam and that the NT does not cite a literature reference. By referencing Moses and Jesus' confirmation of Moses is the same as Jesus confirming Adam. In other words if one argues the validation of Moses then that applies also to Adam and Noah. Then nothing is left to discuss in the realm of theology and if that is all moot then the entire thread is moot.

Windword
In addition to the above post.
When you address the word Christianity are you addressing the Roman theology, Greek theology or the Hebrew theology or are you simply throwing nonsense at the word "Christianity" and hope that something sticks? You do realize the vast differences when you use that word do you not? If you do understand the vast differences then you are not defining that difference in the many callous remarks to Christianity.

originally posted by: windword
....................

There are lots of little things that you post that I don't see eye to eye with, and sometimes you post ideas that I take issue with, but mostly, I agree with everything you have to say, if not technically, in spirit. I always appreciate your posts, and if I see them they always get a star from me, for what that's worth.

I quoted your whole dialog here, because it worthy of a "requote".

Not worth any debate.

Thanks Wind

I appreciate your efforts to deny the ignorance of religion.Many don’t understand the significance of this act where in truth it effects everyone on the planet.It is the duty of anyone who is not bound by religion to sow the seeds of freedom in those that are bound by religion.

The belief in the man Yahoshua of Nazareth is not a prerequisite to deny the ignorance of religion.What is important is truth and the truth can never be known while being held captive of the ignorance of religion so you are freed from that bondage.

This freedom is something those that are bound by religion cannot fathom in the least.It is the exact same condition of the religious men Yahoshua confronted and why he was murdered.Our methods of denying ignorance are different but have the same goal….The TRUTH.

a reply to: Seede

You are a confused person . All Hebrew 613 commands are not meant for everyone except the Hebrews and then some for only that era.

What law did Jesus NOT abolish?

What did Jesus mean when he said that he didn't come to abolish the law? What Law? The Law that says homosexuality is evil or the one that says that sleeping with your wife while she's bleeding is evil? How does any of that relate to non-Jewish Christians?

a reply to: Rex282

What is important is truth and the truth can never be known while being held captive of the ignorance of religion so you are freed from that bondage.

This freedom is something those that are bound by religion cannot fathom in the least.

I was just thinking over the recent threads and posts here a couple of hours ago. I think the issue must be that those who are unable to think past their 'scripture' and to get with modern thinking are newly arrived souls. They are the ones who are insisting that the Bible is verbatim proof...

And there are lots of them. But - that's the way it goes. Not everyone is prepared for, or capable of, thinking outside of their environment. Eventually, they'll be able to. They'll all be fine.....WE WILL all be fine.

Blessed be, everyone.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right, and as long as it is a civil affair, then gays can get married. Get marriage out of the state (which, by the way, racist Christians are responsible for putting it in the state's hands) then you don't have to worry about gays getting married.

Absolutely gays can get married by civil law but not by God's law can that civil marriage ever be honored. As far as the law against homosexual marriage is concerned, that law is not racist as you spout. It is a law given to the Hebrews by their God and sanctified by the Christ of the God who gave the law. If you believe that the law is racist then you have a problem with the one who issued the law. Race has nothing to do with this discussion and to call it racist is untrue and not in fair debate. As for myself I will honor the laws of God and His Begotten Son over the civil laws against God.

Yes, it certainly is racist/bigoted. You can pretend it is God given all you want, but it doesn't prevent it from being intolerant, and of COURSE I have a problem with your God. I think your God is the worst thing ever created by man. This means that I could give a damn if the marriage is recognized by your God. Your God appears to be an intolerant asshole, I want nothing to do with THAT.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, it certainly is racist/bigoted. You can pretend it is God given all you want, but it doesn't prevent it from being intolerant, and of COURSE I have a problem with your God. I think your God is the worst thing ever created by man. This means that I could give a damn if the marriage is recognized by your God. Your God appears to be an intolerant asshole, I want nothing to do with THAT.

You should have said that in the onset of what should have been a honest theological debate. Look back at your post and see the hate and anger that spews from your ignorant filthy tongue. You speak of bigoted (I have not) and yet you are as bigoted as could possibly be. You talk of racist and not one word in my postings was mentioned or inferred towards race. You need a good dictionary as well as Jesus.

a reply to: Seede

I will own up to hating God all day and every day. I am NOT bigoted towards Christians. If I were to EVER see you actually discriminated against in this country instead of all that made up persecution y'all constantly go on about, I'd be right next to you defending you. I have very set opinions on what God is and the things he said are though. God is the worst kind of asshole as per your own bible.

For instance, I don't care if you and your church refuse to marry a single gay couple for the rest of its time on earth. It's your rights as Americans to do that. I don't even care if you don't want to call it a marriage in the eyes of god (it means nothing to me anyways). All I care about is that y'all can't prevent gays from marrying in the eyes of the State. We have taken one more glorious step at removing religion from our government and that is a GOOD thing.

a reply to: windword

What did Jesus mean when he said that he didn't come to abolish the law? What Law? The Law that says homosexuality is evil or the one that says that sleeping with your wife while she's bleeding is evil? How does any of that relate to non-Jewish Christians?

As Jesus taught, He taught the law. He taught meaningful as well as in parables. By law I mean He taught the ten laws written in stone which also included the seven Noahide laws of humanity. Those are the universal laws of all creation which I explained in the above post to you. He did not teach dietary law nor civil law. In fact Peter had a problem with dietary law and was corrected by God. There are divisions of law but the NT usage of the meaning of the word law refers to the ten and seven commands of God which were written by God and given to Moses.

Here is a prime example. The covenant between God and the Hebrews included circumcision. If you are baptized in the covenant of Moses you must be circumcised. If you are baptized in the covenant of Yahusha Hamashiach (Jesus) it is not a requirement to be circumcised but if already circumcised it is accepted. A Gentile is the same as a Jew in the Spirit of God but a covenant (agreement) is the binding contract. Now is circumcision listed in the ten commands? No it is not and yet it is law (contract) unto the Hebrew but not law (contract) unto the Gentile.

So when Jesus taught, He taught that He did not come to change or (abolish) the law. By the word Law is meant the entire ten commands and not dietary or civil or contractual law. Dietary, civil or contractual law is a matter of culture which comes under the seventh Noahide law as well as contracts with God. Jesus taught every one of the ten commandments given to Moses by God and by the same token Jesus taught the entire seven Noahide laws which are included in the ten commandments. As you then understand that Jesus taught both Jew and Gentile with the same law and fulfilled that both Jew and Gentile are born into the same Spirit.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I will own up to hating God all day and every day. I am NOT bigoted towards Christians. If I were to EVER see you actually discriminated against in this country instead of all that made up persecution y'all constantly go on about, I'd be right next to you defending you. I have very set opinions on what God is and the things he said are though. God is the worst kind of asshole as per your own bible. For instance, I don't care if you and your church refuse to marry a single gay couple for the rest of its time on earth. It's your rights as Americans to do that. I don't even care if you don't want to call it a marriage in the eyes of god (it means nothing to me anyways). All I care about is that y'all can't prevent gays from marrying in the eyes of the State. We have taken one more glorious step at removing religion from our government and that is a GOOD thing.

I completely understand what you have written and I understand you and your friends vile hatred towards God. You said it all very clearly. I wish you well in your next life.

a reply to: Seede

This bit.

"see the hate and anger that spews from your ignorant filthy tongue."


Anyone else see the problem with this bit lol.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Pot: "Hey Mr. Kettle, you appear to be black."

a reply to: Seede

So when Jesus taught, He taught that He did not come to change or (abolish) the law.

But Christianity did do just that. Christianity changed ALL the laws. No more Sabbath, no more circumcision, no more feasts, no more cultural or dietary laws, no more polygamy, no more animal sacrifice, no more hospitality laws.

Sure, early Christians still murdered those that refused to accept them and their Gods as their rulers, just like the Deuteromic Jews did, and proclaimed all the world as theirs, just like the Deuteromic Jews.

a reply to: windword

I have hard time believing you've ever studied the OT. First I think Christians should celebrate the feast days and I also think they should honor the Shemitah year. The OT never condones polygamy it just mentions people practicing it. Animal sacrifice is gone because jesus was the perfect lamb. You just don't seem to study very honestly.

a reply to: windword

But Christianity did do just that. Christianity changed ALL the laws. No more Sabbath, no more circumcision, no more feasts, no more cultural or dietary laws, no more polygamy, no more animal sacrifice, no more hospitality laws. Sure, early Christians still murdered those that refused to accept them and their Gods as their rulers, just like the Deuteromic Jews did, and proclaimed all the world as theirs, just like the Deuteromic Jews.

Which Christianity are you referencing. James the Just, or the Roman, Greek Orthodox, or the many denominations of the Protestants? You have to be specific when you accuse others.

First century Christianity under James the Just took no arms against anyone in their history, These were the original Christians and they were sacked and murdered by Rome who then took Christianity to another level. Not one of the twelve Apostles, except Peter, raised a sword against an enemy of Jesus. In that light you are wrong to accuse Christianity of murder. I think you have confused Islam with Christianity.

James the Just did not change anything. The covenant of Jesus required no blood sacrifice of animals or any creature and James did not change the day of Sabbath or have any influence in either sacrifice or sabbath. You are mistaken on both counts. There were no Christians in the era of Moses. Perhaps Jews but no Christians.

It is totally unfair to first century Christians to accuse them of change or murder. It simply is not true.

a reply to: Seede

Canon 29

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Canon 33

No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.

Canon 34

No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics; for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema.

Canon 35

Christians must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry.

Canon 37

It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.

Canon 38

It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.

Synod of Laodicea

a reply to: windword

Synod of Laodicea

And what is your point? What are you trying to express?

a reply to: Seede

I'm trying to express, that while Christians contend that Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, and he said that not one jot of the law shall pass away until Heaven and Earth pass, Christians DID abolish the law..........

Except when it happens to serve their agenda, like with homosexuality and gay marriage.

I'm trying to express, that while Christians contend that Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, and he said that not one jot of the law shall pass away until Heaven and Earth pass, Christians DID abolish the law.......... Except when it happens to serve their agenda, like with homosexuality and gay marriage. a reply to: windword

Once again your answer to that is in my above posts which either you did not read, did not understand, or are playing your game of absent mindedness.

I stated that you must address Christianity into whatever category you are talking about. In other words name the game. You can not be talking about the Hebrew Christians because t6hey no longer were empowered in the forth century and had nothing to do with the Roman Ecclesia which is what the Synod of Laodicea is. The Hebrews were not represented in those meets at all. Neither were the protestants denominations represented in those meetings. Tell it like it is. Name the so called Christians who decided these changes.

For example the Christian Seventh Day Adventists still regard Saturday as the Hebrew Sabbath so when you say Christian you must be fair and name the game that you are playing. The Seventh Day Adventists had nothing to do with changing the Sabbath and yet they are thrown into your mix of Christianity. Name your game.

That would be as saying that the Jews believe in an afterlife. Not all Jews believe in an afterlife. The ruling party of Sadducees did not believe in afterlife so the statement should have been that some Jews believe in afterlife.

Getting back to your post. Simply because the Roman Christians held a Synod some 330 years after the death of Christ Jesus and decided to change the original Hebrew liturgy, has nothing to do with Jesus or the first century church of James. That is not even good sense to say such a thing. It is untrue and unfair. This Synod in Phrygia was held in contempt of the church of James whom they had murdered over three hundred years prior. Now if you do not want to name your game then I will name your game.

It was the Roman Catholic organization that called about thirty clerics together in this Synod and made changes from the original Christian liturgy of the Synagogue of James and the Apostles and the disciples of Christ Jesus. Jesus and His Apostles and His disciples were usurped and their teachings were thrown out the window by the Roman Catholic Church.
Now if you choose to call them Christians then call it by name and put the blame where it should be put but also be accountable that it was you who brought this up and not me.

The problem on ATS is that Christian haters do not know what most are hating. Most all only are concerned with what they are taught in this secular world. The secular world is as ignorant of true Christianity as they are of their own history. Most simply do not know that the majority law makers are not and have never been true Christians. The word Christian is not used in its proper context and never has been. Another startling fact that you may want to mark is that this nation has never been governed by true Christianity and never will be governed by true Christianity.