Why is Bob proud about being homophobic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

karstkid

New member
Response to All.

Quote from Jefferson:
"I don't. The entire Bible needs to be understood from a birds-eye view in order to make sense of the details. You've got to see the entire Biblical forest first in order to make sense of individual doctrinal trees."

Hey everyone. What Jefferson means hear is that he has to interpret the Scriptures through the lense of his Acts 13 brand of dispensationalism. A form of dispensationalism that says the Church started in Acts chapter 13. 95% of regular dispensationalists believe the Church started in Acts chapter 2 which is what 99.99% of Christians believe. Since his belief are beyond the pail of orthodoxy he is an ULTRAdispensationalist. Just keep that in mind. When you answer his postings. He is using a filter. Just go to Google.com and type in ultradispensationalism. There is a lot there.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
It usually takes more than one date to get a hug!


Many people were "offended" by Jesus (Mat. 11:2-19).

Some were offended, some were threatened, some were bored, others were captivated. Then, as now.

Mat 10:14 - "And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."

This ritual act might go back to the Hebrew notion that heathen dust was polluting, therefore making Judeans ritually unclean. If so, the idea is far removed from Jesus, who rejected the concept that ritual impurity could result from contact with lepers, the dead or from gentiles.

Mat 15:12,14 - "Then His disciples came and said to Him, Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying? . . . 'Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind.'"

The fact that Thomas records this saying, and the one about plants rooted out, in different contexts demonstrates that both sayings were once passed orally from person to person. As common wisdom, it would be appropriate on the lips of almost any sage. Jesus was more unique than that, I believe.

Luke 13:31,32 - "The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying to Him, Go out and depart from here, for Herod will kill you. And He said to them, You go and tell that fox, Behold, today and tomorrow, I cast out demons and I complete cures, and the third day I will be finished.

This reflects the plan of Luke's gospel. The second saying form has been repeated before (Greek dei, "it is necessary." This can also be seen in other Luke verses (9:22; 24:44; Acts 1:16, 9:6, 16, 23:11 and 27:24). These saying do not appear in any other written gospel--including Q.

Mat. 23:15 - "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

These condemnations came after the destruction of the temple and are unique to Matthew. Rabbinic traditions took written forms in the Mishna only by the third century. The geographical base of the Pharisees was far to the south in Judea, while Galilee was to the north. Scholars think the sayings reflect the later historical context, not the public life of Jesus. If Jesus interacted with any Pharisees it was personal contact and quite limited.

John 8:44 - "Ye are of your father the devil. . ."

This controversy represents a period of early Christianity, when the mostly gentile community was trying to establish its claims over and against the Jewish community. We need to remember that if a gospel of Jesus were written today, he would be talking literally about prayer in schools, abortion and gender issues. Each gospel reflects a living Jesus which is meaningful for a particular community of believers at a particular time. Most scholars see John's account as the last to be written--nearly 100 years after the crucifixion.

Mark 11:15 - "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;"

That Jesus engaged in some anti-temple act and/or made some statement against the temple, or against its practices, is mentioned in all four canonical gospels.

Mat. 7:6 - "Do not give that which is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine,"

I hope I haven't done this! One good thing that came out of this post was that I really had to work and study over this one! So thanks for THAT!
 
Last edited:

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
"aikido7, now that your blind date with Jesus is over I have a question for you: Did you enjoy it?"

Jefferson, that sounded sarcastic to me. Please answer--Did you mean it that way?
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
"I'll talk about any verse in Leviticus you want...."

1. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans and Dominicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig make me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

...Sometimes humor can be didactic.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by karstkid
Hey everyone. What Jefferson means hear is that he has to interpret the Scriptures through the lense of his Acts 13 brand of dispensationalism. A form of dispensationalism that says the Church started in Acts chapter 13.
I'm not an Acts 13 dispensationalist. I'm an Acts 9 dispensationalist. I believe the Body of Christ began with the conversion of Paul in Acts 9. Paul himself said he was the first member into the Body of Christ in I Timothy 1:16 - "But for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, as a pattern to those being about to believe on Him to life everlasting."
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by aikido7
Many people were "offended" by Jesus (Mat. 11:2-19).

Some were offended, some were threatened, some were bored, others were captivated. Then, as now.
So you agree with me here that Jesus did not have an "open embrace of all."

Mat 10:14 - "And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."

This ritual act might go back to the Hebrew notion that heathen dust was polluting, therefore making Judeans ritually unclean. If so, the idea is far removed from Jesus, who rejected the concept that ritual impurity could result from contact with lepers, the dead or from gentiles.
So you don't believe Jesus said these words?

Mat 15:12,14 - "Then His disciples came and said to Him, Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying? . . . 'Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind.'"

The fact that Thomas records this saying, and the one about plants rooted out, in different contexts demonstrates that both sayings were once passed orally from person to person. As common wisdom, it would be appropriate on the lips of almost any sage. Jesus was more unique than that, I believe.
So you don't think Jesus said this either?

Luke 13:31,32 - "The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying to Him, Go out and depart from here, for Herod will kill you. And He said to them, You go and tell that fox, Behold, today and tomorrow, I cast out demons and I complete cures, and the third day I will be finished.

This reflects the plan of Luke's gospel. The second saying form has been repeated before (Greek dei, "it is necessary." This can also be seen in other Luke verses (9:22; 24:44; Acts 1:16, 9:6, 16, 23:11 and 27:24). These saying do not appear in any other written gospel--including Q.
So you think this is yet another uninspired false quotation of Christ?

Mat. 23:15 - "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

These condemnations came after the destruction of the temple and are unique to Matthew. Rabbinic traditions took written forms in the Mishna only by the third century. The geographical base of the Pharisees was far to the south in Judea, while Galilee was to the north. Scholars think the sayings reflect the later historical context, not the public life of Jesus. If Jesus interacted with any Pharisees it was personal contact and quite limited.
So you don't think Jesus said this either? Do you think any part of the Bible is accurate?

John 8:44 - "Ye are of your father the devil. . ."

This controversy represents a period of early Christianity, when the mostly gentile community was trying to establish its claims over and against the Jewish community. We need to remember that if a gospel of Jesus were written today, he would be talking literally about prayer in schools, abortion and gender issues. Each gospel reflects a living Jesus which is meaningful for a particular community of believers at a particular time. Most scholars see John's account as the last to be written--nearly 100 years after the crucifixion.
The point is Jesus did not have an "open acceptance of all" in John 8:44.

Mark 11:15 - "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;"

That Jesus engaged in some anti-temple act and/or made some statement against the temple, or against its practices, is mentioned in all four canonical gospels.
Point being? The point is that Jesus did not have an "open acceptance" of the moneychangers in this verse.

Mat. 7:6 - "Do not give that which is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine,"

I hope I haven't done this! One good thing that came out of this post was that I really had to work and study over this one! So thanks for THAT!
Did Jesus have an "open acceptance" of the people he referred to as "swine" in this verse?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by aikido7
"aikido7, now that your blind date with Jesus is over I have a question for you: Did you enjoy it?"

Jefferson, that sounded sarcastic to me. Please answer--Did you mean it that way?
Yes, because your signature line sounds very sarcastic to me. Did you mean it that way?
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by Jefferson
So you agree with me here that Jesus did not have an "open embrace of all."

___________________________
I believe Jesus had an "open embrace of all." If it was conditional at all, then he was no different than other men. Some were offended, threatened, bored, and captivated by that embrace. When the student is ready, then the teacher can appear.

______________________________

So you don't believe Jesus said these words?

So you don't think Jesus said this either?

So you think this is yet another uninspired false quotation of Christ?
_________________________
That there is a clear difference made between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith and that there are many different opinions and reconstructions of the authentic sayings of Jesus is not an argument against trying to find out. All of the opinions and reconstructions in the world don't relieve us of the obligation to approach historical reality with the aim of achieving the utmost possible objectivity.

Anything Jesus says that gives answers to community situations from a later time or any saying which presuposes a Gentile (and not a Jewish) audience is suspect.

Anything offensive--especially a hard saying that was changed as time went on (Mark's "Blessed are the poor" and later Matthew's inspiration to write "Blessed are the poor in spirit" is a good example--is probably authentic.

If there is a great gulf between what Jesus says and any of the post-Easter community groups, the saying is probably authentic.

The older a text is, the more it is covered up by later tradition. Also anything which have little or no parallels in Jewish lore probably also go back to the real Jesus.

A criteria that scholars use is the criteria of coherence. Basically, if Jesus does not "practice what he preaches" or "preaches what he practices" (If he doesn't "walk his talk"), then his words are probably additions put into his mouth by the early communities after his death.

---------------------------------------------

So you don't think Jesus said this either? Do you think any part of the Bible is accurate?

-----------------------------------------------
See above and read Ben Witherington or N.T. Wright. They are two easy-to-read scholars which have books available in most libraries.

______________________________



The point is Jesus did not have an "open acceptance of all" in John 8:44.

______________________________
I have a difference of opinion with you. The Pharisees did not have an openess to him.

-----------------------------------------------

Point being? The point is that Jesus did not have an "open acceptance" of the moneychangers in this verse.

-----------------------------------------------
My point is that Matthew has assembled this complex of invectives and insults against the Pharisees from a variety of sources and was inspired to invent much of it himself.

________________________________

Did Jesus have an "open acceptance" of the people he referred to as "swine" in this verse?

_____________________________
Dogs and pigs are unclean. Jesus broke Jewish purity codes, so this statement seems inimical to him.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by Jefferson
Yes, because your signature line sounds very sarcastic to me. Did you mean it that way?

I have had that signature line for nearly 6 months. I certainly did not mean it to sound sarcastic! I thought it was cool. How, specifically, does it show hidden anger? And if you thought it did (and I need to understand how), why didn't you speak your truth earlier and why did the signature line "force" you to be sarcastic back. If you perceive someone is angry, you have more choices than being angry back.

I welcome your questions about what the meaning of the signature line is and my thoughts behind it...
 

karstkid

New member
Response to Jefferson:

I asked you this question:
"Jesus loves homosexuals like all other sinners. You show me in the Gospels how Jesus hated homosexuals."

But, all you gave me were a bunch of OT verses. You never answered my question.
 

karstkid

New member
Response to Jefferson:

Quote:
I'm not an Acts 13 dispensationalist. I'm an Acts 9 dispensationalist. I believe the Body of Christ began with the conversion of Paul in Acts 9. Paul himself said he was the first member into the Body of Christ in I Timothy 1:16 - "But for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, as a pattern to those being about to believe on Him to life everlasting."

The NASB reads 1 Tim. 1:16 this way:
"Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life."

In verse 15 above we read:
"It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all."

Paul uses the word "formost" because he was the greatest of sinners. The context does not say anything about him being the first member of the Body of Christ.

You need to read things in context. Denver Seminary has courses in hermeneutics. There are good books on hermeneutics as well.

As far as Acts 9 or Acts 13, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that the Church, Body of Christ, Bride of Christ, People of God, The Way, Christians all started in Acts 2 at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Christian Church of all generations and all denominations except your 0.0001% of the Church always believed that Pentecost was the beginning of the Church.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
aikido7:

Your response to the "open embrace of all" issue contained several uses of the word "probably" as you decided whether the words in scripture were Jesus' actual words or not. That is an open door to be your own god and make your own rules. No thanks. I'll let God be God.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by aikido7
I have had that signature line for nearly 6 months. I certainly did not mean it to sound sarcastic! I thought it was cool. How, specifically, does it show hidden anger?
Your signature seems to imply that you believe evangelicals have an innacurate view of who Jesus is and that you are here to correct them.

And if you thought it did (and I need to understand how), why didn't you speak your truth earlier
I was waiting for the most appropriate opportunity in context from one of your posts.

and why did the signature line "force" you to be sarcastic back.
It didn't "force" me to be sarcastic back. I "chose" to be sarcastic back.

If you perceive someone is angry, you have more choices than being angry back.
Who's angry? I see sarcasm as humorously making a point.

I welcome your questions about what the meaning of the signature line is and my thoughts behind it...
Okay, what is the meaning of your signature line and your thoughts behind it?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by karstkid
Response to Jefferson:

I asked you this question:
"Jesus loves homosexuals like all other sinners. You show me in the Gospels how Jesus hated homosexuals."

But, all you gave me were a bunch of OT verses. You never answered my question.
Why did I give you OT verses? Because Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to annul the Law" (Mat. 5:17). God is the same yesterday today and forever. Every single one of those OT verses reveal God's character of who He is today.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
How could so many people be so uninformed and ignorant of the developing tradition of Christian scholarship for nearly 300 years? Given the intensive tholgoical debates and high levels of attention in the recent 20 years alone, this level of misinformation on the part of many believers suggests to me that some may be avoiding having an experience of "cognitive dissonance." (That is, having their beliefs conflict with the facts).

To seperate the evidence, facts and data from the opinions, beliefs and dogma means making an effort to get beyond our short attention span on historical knowledge, beyond fragmentary or conflicting pastoral homilies that lack depth or an evaluating eye.

Churches share a major part of the blame by becoming giant bureaucracies-turned-salvation-machines thereby complicating the simple message of the Gallilean sage and simplifying his deep teachings.

Many believers do not read so much as learn to smirk, and their hysterical reactions to new information belies the panic they exhibit.
But the strength and vitality of any tradition can be measured by the depth and integrity of its continuous self-criticism.

Insecurity and uncertainty have produced a pack of political and ideological bullies: fundamentalists on the right and politically correct liberals on the left insist that we all adopt their points of view. I don't like bullies--big or little, human or divine, smart or dumb.

I prefer to make up my own mind after careful review of evidence and historical facts and data. Scholars today use DNA, textual study, sociological and anthropological data, literary form study and archeology. The last 20 years have shown a profound infusion of new knowledge and correlation of existing knowledge that can be brought to bear on a better understanding of Christianity.

Let God be God!
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by Jefferson
Your signature seems to imply that you believe evangelicals have an innacurate view of who Jesus is and that you are here to correct them.

Implications must give way to true intentions. Inaccurate, no. Different, yes. Valid--certainly!

Who's angry? I see sarcasm as humorously making a point.

Sarcasm is ALWAYS a cover for anger. Making a point is one thing, humor is another. A "cutting, hostile or contemptuous remark" says Webster's. The perfect dodge after sarcasm is "Can't you take a JOKE?"

Okay, what is the meaning of your signature line and your thoughts behind it?

One goes on a date expecting fun, and a blind date is a surprise. Actually taking Jesus seriously is often surprising to those who are acquainted with a Jesus who demands nothing of them except to repeat unexamined beliefs and assertions.

The pamphlet called "The Fundamentals" was published by rich buisnessmen in the early 20th century. That's where the term "fundamentalism" comes from. "Fun" is just a play on the double meaning of joy and theological liberation not usually found in dogmatic circles.

Now you can see first-hand that there's always more to learn!
 

karstkid

New member
Jefferson:

Quote:
"Why did I give you OT verses? Because Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to annul the Law" (Mat. 5:17). God is the same yesterday today and forever. Every single one of those OT verses reveal God's character of who He is today."


Correct! Jesus did not come to abolish the Law. He came to fulfill it.
Also, Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount gave us new revelation in regards to the Law. For example, in Matt. 5:43-48 Jesus says:

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

To love your enemies was a new revelation to the Jewish people. All they knew was an eye for and an eye and a tooth for a tooth. So if "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever," then "love your enemies" applies to you as well regarding homosexuals.
 

karstkid

New member
aikido7:

Thanks for the kind advise you gave in an earlier post.

Quote:
"These saying do not appear in any other written gospel--including Q."

I know this is small divergence from the topic of homosexuality, but do you consider the so called book of Q legitimate. It really doesn't exist. To John Dominic Crossan, a member/leader of the Jesus Seminar it is. That man and those of his ilk are totally apostate. I wish the Catholic university (DePaul) he teaches at would fire him. The members of the Jesus Seminar have done a lot to lead people astray. Consider what Jesus said in Matt. 18:6.

"but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

Please do not give the Q "book" any credence. Doing so would seem to contradict your signature line.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Karskid, Then what do you call the material Luke and Matthew have in common--in the same order--when they're not copying and changing Mark's gospel?

Q is shorthand for the German word "quelle," which means "source." This has been known for 200 years or more. I can understand one's fear and outrage if one has never heard of it before.

It's taught in seminaries and New Testament cirriculae. Would-be clergy all learn it. Hardly anyone talks about it and Christianity has suffered as a result.

Up until 1945, many scholars doubted the existence of a source containing only Jesus' sayings--which is what the prevalent theory was back then on the common material. In 1945, though, a sayings gospel was discovered in an earthen jar named later as the Gospel of Thomas. It, too, was comprised totally of sayings. There were no birth or infancy narratives, passion material or other biographical information. And, it was the same length as the previously recognized Q material. It also contained many parallel sayings found in the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

To many, these facts gave weight to the argument that Q was an early sayings gospel which was used freely by both Luke and Matthew to compose their accounts.
 

karstkid

New member
aikido7:

Q or quelle doesn't really exist as I said before. It is conjectured that it does exist. As far as the apocryphal and gnostic Gospel of Thomas being the long lost "Q" book, please read the following 3 page article.

"Is the Gospel of Thomas Reliable?" By Michael J. Bumbulis

The URL for the article is: http://answers.org/bible/gospelofthomas.html

Michael J. Bumbulis does a great job elucidating the Gospel of Thomas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top