It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Luke, however, filled in many of the blanks Paul failed to mention in any of his letters to the churches. The problem is, Luke told three versions of Paul’s claimed conversion, and none of the three agree on the details:...
Acts 20:4-6: "[Paul] was accompanied by Sopater, son of Pyrrhus of Beroea…these went ahead and were waiting for us at Troas…where we stayed for seven days."
One of the early translators did a strange thing with the name, Pyrrhus: He omitted it! And the King James Version did the same.
Who was Pyrrhus to the Greeks? Pyrrhus, The Fool of Hope, was a story Plutarch wrote and titled at about the same time Luke's gospel was being penned. It includes the following:...
Pyrrhus was one of the soldiers who participated in the Trojan horse saga. And that is the best-known legacy from the legend of Troy. It's what everyone thinks of when Troy and the Trojan War are mentioned. The name Pyrrhus was inserted here in Luke's gospel in the same sentence as Troas to direct the reader to the legend of the Trojan Horse.
Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by b14warrior
I am not a Christian, but I can tell you that your logic and insecurity of someones elses religion is extremely flawed!
Leviticus was from the old testament, (Torah) which was a set of laws for the Jews! NOT CHRISTIANS!
The New Testament is for the Christians!
Not sure why you have to post against someones religious beliefs if you don't yourself agree with them, and if you do, you might want to make sure that your posting is accurate!
Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
No, Biblicaly you are incorrect.
In the Biblical language it is not --->as in not a judgement in this framework
Again, this is another English word that is being conveniently stretched to cover other concepts.. Hrmn..
Originally posted by b14warrior
reply to post by seeker1963
So why do Christians ALWAYS bring up the famous quote from Leviticus concerning homosexuality?
And I see nothing wrong with having a discussion about the views of a religious group if it effect me and others around me. If their views didn't effect people then I wouldn't talk of them.
I also know that many Churches and Christians follow new and old testament.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Again. We have to agree to disagree. I am only willing to use the English definition inherit as it would require faith in the Bible which I do not have to use the word otherwise.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The term and understanding of orientation was was developed much later with the advance in the study of psychology.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I saw you mention this before but decided to not comment on it. It's non sequitur. How does homosexuality relate to adultery?
Look are you willing to break this down fairly? Surely you know gay couples have the means to 'multiply' with technology and medicine (surely technology and medicine was forseen by an omnipotent and omniscient God).
mark 10:
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Ignorance is a subjective term.
You cannot judge what the Bible says unless you have read it, understand it, and understand its nuances.
That is still a hotly debated topic
It has to do with marriage out of wedlock, and that Biblically only heterosexual marriages were considered to meet the criteria of being a true marriage
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by defcon5
You cannot judge what the Bible says unless you have read it, understand it, and understand its nuances.
I am certain at this point I have read and studied it. As far as understanding it and appreciating the nuances. Of course that's up to anyones belief. Can't really argue that aspect now can I?
That is still a hotly debated topic
And I would hotly debate it.
It has to do with marriage out of wedlock, and that Biblically only heterosexual marriages were considered to meet the criteria of being a true marriage
Okay I see.
It is sinful for homosexuals to have sex out of wedlock but they are not allowed to be wed. If you cannot appreciate the bitter irony there... not sure what I can say in one thread to persuade.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
It is sinful for homosexuals to have sex out of wedlock but they are not allowed to be wed. If you cannot appreciate the bitter irony there... not sure what I can say in one thread to persuade.