Christians, what would your Jesus do, if here today!?

Originally posted by Misfit
There is a vast differenve between that statement, and the actions the world see's most Christians do - damning the non-Christians for what they do (ie; gay people)

First off, Christians do not DAMN anyone God does. As a Christian I cannot think of anyone I would LIKE to see go to hell.

Originally posted by Misfit
Of that, I would disagree with their desire. Once a book, stay that book. But then, it really would not matter as that book [Bible] has been changed repeatedly for hundreds of years.

Where do you get that?
The Dead Sea scrolls proved the consistency of the Old Testament over thousands of years. The original copies of the New Testament books are available to check. The only thing that has ever been done is deciding which books to keep and which to leave out, and that has remained pretty consistent since like the dark ages. Even then, you can still read the copies of the books that where left out.

Alternatively, do you mean the translations have been changed?
Most Christians agree that the King James Version of the Bible is the most standard, even then, you can check from translation to translation, and they are really not THAT different.

Originally posted by Misfit
Sometimes? Man what verse is that?
Righteous Anger is of God/Jesus, not of man.

Righteous Anger is allowed for Christians, but it is an anger that is basically in agreement with God, when men go against him. Its one of those things that I don�t have the time, or probably the space to explain here correctly, so here are a few links I found on it from a quick search:


www.bible.org...
cnview.com...
www.rushman.org...

Originally posted by Misfit
If the blacks had just kept to the back of the bus ............
If women had just kept in the kitchen..........

Very different thing, Christians where not blocking their constitutional rights. Christian Churches DO NOT have to grant anything to an unrepentant sinner, this is called excommunication. That is not a violation of anyone�s civil rights anymore then certain clubs only allowing men or women to have membership.

Originally posted by Misfit
Who gave the Christian the right to say who can and can not be married?
Don't tell me God, he did not make the Christian the police of his laws, he made them carriers.

Nope, your right, his police are called pastors, ministers, reverends, etc� They do have the God given authority to decide whom to marry, bury, who to excommunicate, and all other Christian spiritual matters. I think it�s called the office of the Keys.



spelling


[edit on 10/25/2004 by defcon5]

Spelling

[edit on 10/28/2004 by defcon5]

I know a christian man who is probably the nicest person that I know. This man's life revolves around his religion though I would never classify him as a fundamentalist. He probably prays and goes to church more times per day than I breathe. He is in the church choir, he organizes religious retreats and he helps in all fund raisers for the church. Never have I seen this man sin or heard anything bad against him.

What I respect most of this man is his non-judgmental nature. When I turned away from the christian religion he did not try and lure me back, he accepted my decision. His kind eyes seem to penetrate to the very core of anyone he sees. It's as if he sees a person for whom they truly are, instead of the beliefs they cover themselves with.

It is because of this man alone that I still retain any respect for the christian religion. If Jesus was alive today this man is who I see him being. If I accept the translation of the bible I have now then Jesus would be a humble, loving, caring and forgiving man much like the man I know.

Jesus wouldn't attempt to radically change the world in his lifetime because it would be a futile attempt. In today's society he would be classified as a quack and if he performed any miracles the same people that he came to save would crucify him again for being the anti-christ. The only way to change the world is to start one person at a time. Love is contagious.

The character of the man I spoke of is contagious. Those who are near him can't help but admire his kindness and take some of his good qualities for themselves. All he has to do is have a profound effect on a few people in the course of his life and then the few will do the same for others causing a chain reaction. It is no revolution but it does have a positive impact on the world and this man knows this.

So to the christians out there I say follow in the footsteps of this man I mention. Accept people for who they are underneath everything and respect their right to their own freewill. Spend your time preaching to those who are interested and respect the decision of those who are not. It is God's gift that people can chose how they live their lives and as a gift from God no person has any right to take it from another.

So don't judge others because in the end your life is ultimately about YOU not how many people you converted to christianity. Life is short and you have so little time to prepare yourself for eternity. Concentrate on yourself and help and teach those who ask for it. But don't waste your precious time judging others because judging yourself is a lifelong endeavor.

Your life is about YOU, my life is about ME. Neither of us is here to babysit the other.

If Jesus were to come today, it would be the greatest thing ever to take place since Genesis. Muslims would be joyous! Christians would be Joyous, The Question would be do the Jews recognize the Messiah; they did not the first time. It would be imperative they do so this second coming! Hindu�s and Buddhists would be in deep doo doo.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Let�s take that line of thought then without having to delve into what one thinks he would or would not condone in that context. How many Christians do you know of do not engage in pre-marital sex, and how many Christians do you know of, or are on this thread, who were not virgins at marriage, or will not be virgins at marriage, or are divorced and remarried, who belive in but ignore your take of Christ�s belief, andt hammer away in his name at homosexuals? Extra-marital sex is not exclusive to homosexuals, and therefore the context you present is of no import.

I already answered that a few posts back, but here:

Originally posted by Defcon5
I knew this reply was coming�
I already was typing the answer up when you posted.

Yes, it is also a sin for Christians or anyone to commit Adultery or Fornication.

The biggest difference is that when it is a heterosexual situation the problem often takes care of itself because the person eventually marries a member of the opposite sex. In a same sex marriage, which God does not consider a true marriage; they live in fornication their entire lives. Since they choose to continue to live in sin, they do not REPENT their sin and it puts them in a bad situation in Gods eyes.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I do not agree. A man taking a wife is what seems to be the context of marriage in the Bible, at least in the OT. And this very act all throughout the OT provided for a woman to become the property of a man, and for him to have several wives and concubines. This particular attrition to union is one of the areas that screams man-made law, where out of nowhere in Genesis 2:24, after the so-called making of Eve comes; �Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father and shall cleave unto his wife.� A blatant attempt at inserting in a place where it could not have been, a random law that is nowhere else qualified save to allow for polygamy and concubines. Unfortunately the authors were not too swift on proof-reading some of the nonsense they wrote when putting together this blatant attempt to elevate a nomadic and third class citizenry above the polytheists of the day. Where they called for cleaving to a wife yet being allowed to have many, these monotheist history forgers neglected to refer to this passage in Joshua: �But cleave unto the Lord your God, as ye have done this day.�

Furthermore, the story of David and Jonathan and Daniel and Ashpenaz seem to have been penned with a very careful hand.

God�s first command was to be fruitful and multiply. Any sexual activity that is not in the bonds of marriage and does not have the chance at creating life is unbiblical.

And no, I am not Catholic.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
If that is how you view marriage, then I fail to understand what point your previous statement is trying to make. Yet, I see that as your interpretation of the scriptures and not based on anything Christ said.

First I do not see why everything with you has to come straight from the mouth of Christ, there are a lot more books in the bible. Christ was trained in these books, and it is a given that the basics are in them. Christ did not feel the need to rewrite the bible from Genesis forward, it was already there, he only changed what needed to be changed and fulfilled parts of it. Look how often Christ quotes the Old Testament books, he was always saying, �isn�t it written��

The marriage feast parable was referring to Christ and his churches wedding, and then there are these:

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

The entire book of Hosea is about the relationship between God and his church of the time, Israel.

This is a REALLY basic biblical fact, the fact that you don�t know it tells me you are either feigning ignorance, or need to study some more.

Oh, and the point I was making is that Christ would not allow something sinful to pervade the sacrament of marriage.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Unless he disagreed? Let me put it to you his way. Here comes a man supposedly claiming to be the Son of God, preaching that God the father is the almighty. He then disagrees with his father, tells you that you had better believe him when he says to you that you must toss out everything you learned previously because the father has sent him to set new rules. And you just obey? Yet another mangled mess by the second set of forgers who wanted to exalt themselves above the last group of leadership fanatics: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfilli] in Matthew 5, when he then proceeds to change a number of those laws? How exactly does then if he did not disagree with circumcision that it is acceptable by Christians to not be circumcised, or that he said nothing about disagreeing with the jubilees, that it has become acceptable for Christians to eliminate Passover and all others, or that he said nothing about disagreeing with offerings, where again Christians decided they were exempt?

I see where you are having two problems here in general. First not all Jewish law applies to gentiles, second many things in the Old Testament where there specifically to foreshadow the coming of Christ, and where null and void after he fulfilled them. Again basic stuff.

Example:

Passover the short version
People told to kill an unblemished lamb, and paint the doorsills.
Unprotected Egyptian first-born children die.
Hebrews lead out of Egypt to the Promised Land.

Explanation/Fulfillment
Christ the unblemished lamb (no sin) killed on the cross.
Anyone not under the protection of his blood dies the second death (ocean of fire).
Those protected lead to Promised Land (heaven).

Result
Foreshadowing prophecy fulfilled

The Old Testament is FULL of these kinds of traditions and celebrations.

Offerings are no longer given because Christ was the ultimate offering for our sins, why do you think that they used unspotted lambs? After killing it, they sprinkled the blood on the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a curtain from the rest of the temple. If you remember correctly, that curtain tore when Christ died, signifying that God would accept no more/other sacrifice for forgiveness of sins.


Circumcision like the dietary laws only ever applied to the Israelites, never to Gentiles.



edit:spelling


[edit on 10/25/2004 by defcon5]

Come on you guys!!!!!!!

I don't judge any type of religion, I don't follow any (all made) religion, but I think some christians analyse too much the bible
Listen...this book was written many many years ago by evangelists in hebrew and many people wrote and re-wrote it over the years, made different version because they did not agree with it...so you think that this books is authentical of god's speech?????? if so, well u r naive

SIN..that a word I think is too much taking seriously by christians! Everybody sins...because that is human nature! We are NOT perfect cuz if we were perfect, we would not be on earth to learn...
God forgive everybody, u don't even have to ask to forgivness, god is unconditionnaly loving...churches, priest, pope and nuns (who obviously never sin ) told you too many things in your young christians life

Beleive and trust YOURSELF that is what god wants...BTW I'M sure if jesus come back here today he would say: WHAT have you done with my teachings!!!! I have to start all over again!

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If Jesus came back then Judgement Day had arrived and He will wrought His justice on everyone. End of story and end of time as we know it. Enough said.

[edit on 10-25-2004 by Cearbhall]

Originally posted by defcon5The biggest difference is that when it is a heterosexual situation the problem often takes care of itself because the person eventually marries a member of the opposite sex. In a same sex marriage, which God does not consider a true marriage; they live in fornication their entire lives. Since they choose to continue to live in sin, they do not REPENT their sin and it puts them in a bad situation in Gods eyes.

That is your interpretation of the scriptures speaking. I have yet to see where you or anyone else has provided me with the proof to that which is not in the Pauline books, but from your Christian saviour. As I have last provided to you, I see nothing that would prove my passages on �cleave�and therefore the principal of marriage to be incorrect, or anything for that matter which I have posited. So, you may have answered, but you have not supported your position with Christ�s words. Furthermore, you have used unwritten words to sculpt your own belief,.

God�s first command was to be fruitful and multiply. Any sexual activity that is not in the bonds of marriage and does not have the chance at creating life is unbiblical.

Incorrect! God�s first command to the human was Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Here is what you fail to understand. Eve was created as companion/helper for Adam, it was not until they ate that apple that magically, they understood that being naked was embarrassing, and it was not until after that time that God declared Eve will be bearing children. Why? Because they likely engaged in sex, because there is no logical reason why the two very first people of creation should feel embarrassed about their nakedness. That sir, was the tree of life�procreation.

First I do not see why everything with you has to come straight from the mouth of Christ, there are a lot more books in the bible.

There are 66 to be exact in the version you most likely use. And I am not open to anyone�s philosophical renderings of the Bible when it is solely to suit their purpose, especially when they cite same as the basis for their belief. I want to see the proof. It was to such a rendering as repeated below that I wanted proof, and it is up to you to support that position.

What marriage represents is the relationship between Christ and his Church, the last thing that he would allow to be made into anything less then what it is meant to be.

Christ was trained in these books, and it is a given that the basics are in them. Christ did not feel the need to rewrite the bible from Genesis forward, it was already there, he only changed what needed to be changed and fulfilled parts of it.

Granted. But that does not address my questions on circumcision or Passover, and why you choose to pull out those laws he did not address for your own benefit while you refuse to acknowledge the others. It�s not only hypocritical, it is blasphemous. With regard the fulfillment, you believe as you will, for I believe that that the only possible fulfillment was that the prophet foretold, came. If you wish to go the route of his fulfilling Moses� laws, then kindly explain to me why Christians push the story that most of what God told the Jews was supposedly fulfilled and tossed aside, while the rest was not, yet you and they pick and choose what is not addressed to your hearts content.

Look how often Christ quotes the Old Testament books, he was always saying, �isn�t it written��

That surely convinces me that his education in Egypt was rewarding.

The marriage feast parable was referring to Christ and his churches wedding, and then there are these

So there was a marriage between a man and a woman. In one instance, 10 virgins meet a bridegroom, in the other he attended and made wine. How does either of those support your claim? Care to discuss the 10 virgins as being a groom�s calling now?

Do not, when trying to make your case using Jesus Christ, quote anything from Paul to me. He was not Christ, he did not meet the man, and his words seem to suggest that he was confused as to whether his dead companion an dothers with him on the road to Damascus heard or not, the voice he heard.

The entire book of Hosea is about the relationship between God and his church of the time, Israel.

Okay then, again I submit based on yours, that marriage was between God and man, and not man and woman. Should Israel cleave unto God, or should man cleave unto his wife, and if the latter, then it seems quite fine that man can cleave to more than one God, if the former, then man must marry God and woman. Which way do you wish to take this?

This is a REALLY basic biblical fact

There is no, and I repeat no Biblical fact as stated by either God the father or God the son to support your position.

I see where you are having two problems here in general. First not all Jewish law applies to gentiles,

Ii is not I having the problems, it is you. I specifically said Christ made no statement on homosexuality, and asked where Christ mentioned homosexuality, and in rebuttal to the obtuse responses I received and some such nonsense about beastiality, and more specifically from you, that you did not know where I got the idea Christ said no such thing, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of Christianity�deny the Jews, but pick and choose their laws as suits your purpose, which you have yet to directly address. And I beg to differ, the Passover was discontinued by his apostles, for if you knew your scriptures at all, the man Jesus, celebrated same previously and was celebrating that very feast just prior to his arrest. He said absolutely nothing about discontinuing the Jubilees, and was himself a devotee to same. The offerings are no longer given because the men responsible for dismissing them did so after his death, and successfully managed to do exactly what they set out to�rest control of the Jewish movement.

As for my ignorance sir, I have yet to see you provide me with an argument devoid of platitude and instead, with proof. When someone calls me ignorant of the Bible, I like to toy with their minds when it comes to their own ignorance, (one already mentioned):

Mark 14:32:41 And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith unto his disciples, sit ye here while I pray. And he taketh with him Peter and James and John�and he went forward a little and fell on the ground�and he said, Abba, father, all things are possible unto thee�

And he cometh and findeth them sleeping�

And again he went away, and prayed�
And when he returned, he found them asleep again�

They were all asleep, who heard the words he prayed?

And for the record, The Dead Sea Scrolls does little to support the OT, they were written no earlier than the third century, and in fact if anything, the mention of Gilgamesh in Enoch, might explain why so little translations have been released to the public in the 57 years since discovery.

Since I'm not a Christian, I cannot claim to be an expert on what Jesus would do, and acknowledge that the topic question is addressed toward Christians, not me.

Nonetheless, I have my own ideas, misguided and incorrect though they might be, and wish to share them.

I think if Jesus were here today, he would be trying to get us to realize that the Kingdom of God really is within us, that we are all brothers and sisters, all children of our Creator, that none of us is more important than another, and that knowing all this, we cannot help but love one another.

But what do I know?

He would come here and say:

"Hey guys how have you been all these... WTF!"

"What is going on here?!?! You... who told you to do that? What me?!?!
I never said anything like that!! Where did you get that from? The "NEW TESTAMENT"?!? I never wrote that!"

And so on...

The bible must be the biggest misquote ever.. the beginning of journalism?

Hey LadyV, I just wanted to say....uhm...LadyV? Oh, she left.

Good thread everyone, I've enjoyed the discussion. Here are some of my notes:

1. Christians on the whole are seen as hypocrits or so left the impression for a lot of people on ATS.
2. The one question everyone would ask Jesus if he were on earth would be his thoughts on homosexuality.
3. The Bible is seen by non-Christians as inconsistent as opposed to a complete book by Christians.

My thoughs/resolutions to the above:

1. I will absolutely do my best to 'practice what I preach', as this appeals to both God and those here.
2. I did not see this issue to be the focus point of his teachings. I will then focus on what he did teach.
3. Pray, train, study. It's worked for what I thought were similar 'gaps' before. For me it seems a few re-reads and discussions help answer these questions.

Thanks all!

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
That is your interpretation of the scriptures speaking. I have yet to see where you or anyone else has provided me with the proof to that which is not in the Pauline books, but from your Christian saviour. As I have last provided to you, I see nothing that would prove my passages on �cleave�and therefore the principal of marriage to be incorrect, or anything for that matter which I have posited. So, you may have answered, but you have not supported your position with Christ�s words. Furthermore, you have used unwritten words to sculpt your own belief,.

I have yet seen you respond to the fact that if it was against Old Testament Law, it is still in effect unless Christ either through his actions or speech said otherwise. And Yet again a quote from Christ, not Paul:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever, therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever, shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So, if you cannot answer this, then you have no dispute.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Incorrect! God�s first command to the human was Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Here is what you fail to understand. Eve was created as companion/helper for Adam, it was not until they ate that apple that magically, they understood that being naked was embarrassing, and it was not until after that time that God declared Eve will be bearing children. Why? Because they likely engaged in sex, because there is no logical reason why the two very first people of creation should feel embarrassed about their nakedness. That sir, was the tree of life�procreation.

This was a command to ALL creation, man included:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth�..

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

While we never agree on our biblical view of things, I would hope that at the least we can agree that 3 comes after 1.

As far as the sin committed being Sexual, I SIR, did not comment one way or the other on what the sin in fact was. It does imply that Eve had relations with the serpent; however, and I am not sure if I can agree with this or not. According to Enoch, and other Pseudopigraphal (Even being mentioned in Gilgamesh, as you brought up) there is a time, around Genesis 6 when these types of affairs did occur. There is little doubt that this is the case, the reason for the flood, and why Enoch was removed from the Bible and the Torah. It is still accepted by the Ethiopian Church, however. Either way it does little to prove your point, it was STILL HETROSEXUAL contact.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
There are 66 to be exact in the version you most likely use. And I am not open to anyone�s philosophical renderings of the Bible when it is solely to suit their purpose, especially when they cite same as the basis for their belief. I want to see the proof. It was to such a rendering as repeated below that I wanted proof, and it is up to you to support that position.

Actually I have read well beyond the Bible, including Apocryphal, and Pseudopigraphal writings. Why not state the TRUTH here, you want to see proof, but are not willing to accept anywhere in the Bible that goes against what you believe, you just omit those parts from your Bible, which is why you can only accept 39 books, almost half what is written.

It is written that in latter times there would be those who would seek religions that scratch their itching ears, and allow for unsound doctrine.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Granted. But that does not address my questions on circumcision or Passover, and why you choose to pull out those laws he did not address for your own benefit while you refuse to acknowledge the others. It�s not only hypocritical, it is blasphemous. With regard the fulfillment, you believe as you will, for I believe that that the only possible fulfillment was that the prophet foretold, came. If you wish to go the route of his fulfilling Moses� laws, then kindly explain to me why Christians push the story that most of what God told the Jews was supposedly fulfilled and tossed aside, while the rest was not, yet you and they pick and choose what is not addressed to your hearts content.

I take real personal offence at being called Blasphemous, especially by someone that is trying to tell me that Homosexuality is acceptable. Where is it that Christ changed the Old Testament ruling on this?

That is the burden of proof I am going to ask from you. Where did Christ say, �I know it is written that sex is only allowed between man and woman, but��?

Until you can answer that, YOU are the Blasphemer here, not I.

I have already explained that Christ FULFILLED Passover with his death on the cross, the day after he celebrated the Last Passover with his disciples. Now Passover is what we call Communion�

Again, SOME things never applied to GENTILE Christians that applied to Hebrews. This is from Acts, and is about Simon Peter:

Act 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Act 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Act 11:3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
Act 11:4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
Act 11:5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
Act 11:6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 11:7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
Act 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
Act 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Again, though, you probably will not accept this because it does not SCRATCH your ITCHING EARS.

I am not the one picking or choosing here, I have answered everything you have asked, it is you, you have yet to answer the following:
Where is it that Christ changed the Old Testament ruling on adultery/ fornication/ homosexuality?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

The marriage feast parable was referring to Christ and his churches wedding, and then there are these

So there was a marriage between a man and a woman. In one instance, 10 virgins meet a bridegroom, in the other he attended and made wine. How does either of those support your claim? Care to discuss the 10 virgins as being a groom�s calling now?

Do not, when trying to make your case using Jesus Christ, quote anything from Paul to me. He was not Christ, he did not meet the man, and his words seem to suggest that he was confused as to whether his dead companion an dothers with him on the road to Damascus heard or not, the voice he heard.

The entire book of Hosea is about the relationship between God and his church of the time, Israel.

Okay then, again I submit based on yours, that marriage was between God and man, and not man and woman. Should Israel cleave unto God, or should man cleave unto his wife, and if the latter, then it seems quite fine that man can cleave to more than one God, if the former, then man must marry God and woman. Which way do you wish to take this?

This is a REALLY basic biblical fact

There is no, and I repeat no Biblical fact as stated by either God the father or God the son to support your position.

The marriage is between GOD AND HIS CHURCH, not between GOD AND MAN. The one about wine has nothing to do with the subject.

Man is to marry his wife, and be faithful, the same way that God is to marry the church and be faithful. To man one wife for life, to God one Church for eternity.

Here, or do you reject John as well?

Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

I see where you are having two problems here in general. First not all Jewish law applies to gentiles,

Ii is not I having the problems, it is you. I specifically said Christ made no statement on homosexuality, and asked where Christ mentioned homosexuality, and in rebuttal to the obtuse responses I received and some such nonsense about beastiality, and more specifically from you, that you did not know where I got the idea Christ said no such thing, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of Christianity�deny the Jews, but pick and choose their laws as suits your purpose, which you have yet to directly address. And I beg to differ, the Passover was discontinued by his apostles, for if you knew your scriptures at all, the man Jesus, celebrated same previously and was celebrating that very feast just prior to his arrest. He said absolutely nothing about discontinuing the Jubilees, and was himself a devotee to same. The offerings are no longer given because the men responsible for dismissing them did so after his death, and successfully managed to do exactly what they set out to�rest control of the Jewish movement.

As for my ignorance sir, I have yet to see you provide me with an argument devoid of platitude and instead, with proof. When someone calls me ignorant of the Bible, I like to toy with their minds when it comes to their own ignorance, (one already mentioned):

Mark 14:32:41 And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith unto his disciples, sit ye here while I pray. And he taketh with him Peter and James and John�and he went forward a little and fell on the ground�and he said, Abba, father, all things are possible unto thee�

And he cometh and findeth them sleeping�

And again he went away, and prayed�
And when he returned, he found them asleep again�
They were all asleep, who heard the words he prayed?

And for the record, The Dead Sea Scrolls does little to support the OT, they were written no earlier than the third century, and in fact if anything, the mention of Gilgamesh in Enoch, might explain why so little translations have been released to the public in the 57 years since discovery.

First off I am not the one that mentioned Bestiality, someone else brought that up. Secondly I have never seen Gilgamesh mentioned in Enoch, I could be wrong there, But I do not recall it. I already mentioned that they discuss some of the same topics, and the reason that Enoch was removed.

As far as what was written about things that occurred when not in the presents of the disciples, that seems easy enough to explain. They where together of THREE YEARS, I am sure that there is MUCH that occurred, conversations and such, that they did not write down. I would imagine that if Christ thought it was significant and wanted it recorded he TOLD them about it.

I already explained the discontinuation of Passover, but would have to read up on Jubilees.

As for the rest, Again I ask:

Where is it that Christ changed the Old Testament ruling on adultery/ fornication/ homosexuality?

Or maybe your suggesting that we should go back to the way it was back then and stone at the gates anyone charged with these things?

[edit on 10/28/2004 by defcon5]

Good post saint4God


After rereading your/my posts SomewhereinBetween I would like to point out ONE further thing.

Gen 1:28 Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth�..

Man.
Have Dominion�
Subdue...
Male and Female...
Be fruitful and multiply

This is obviously pointed DIRECTLY at man.

[edit on 10/28/2004 by defcon5]

Down to 38 books yet?


[edit on 10/28/2004 by defcon5]