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

a reply to: Seede

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.

The persecution of homosexuals by Christians today, has nothing to do with Jesus or the first century church of James. You're side stepping the issue. It doesn't matter what James the Righteous taught before he was assassinated, circa 60 AD, in the temple.

What does matter is the general hypocrisy of Christians who use "the Law" to persecute homosexuals but don't care about the law when it applies to how they live their lives and worship their God. Christians don't follow the law, that Jesus supposedly preserved. Christians have abolished the law.

FYI for anyone interested, here is a very different perspective on Saul of Tarsus based on the earliest known manuscripts, as opposed to the King James "version":

The Gospel of Paul

Keep in mind, too, that Annas is the one who told the Sanhedrin that Mary and Joseph (the carpenter) had illicit relations, putting them on trial... both were found innocent. Perhaps because Annas had hoped to wed his son Ananias to Mary, so he was more than a little put out that did not happen.

a reply to: windword

What does matter is the general hypocrisy of Christians who use "the Law" to persecute homosexuals but don't care about the law when it applies to how they live their lives and worship their God. Christians don't follow the law, that Jesus supposedly preserved. Christians have abolished the law.

What US law did Christians use to persecute Homosexuality? How did the US persecute homosexuals?

What business is it of others what a religion believes if it does not affect them? Why is it your business to be concerned what religions believe?

Answer the above - please

a reply to: Seede

What US law did Christians use to persecute Homosexuality? How did the US persecute homosexuals?

How does US law become an important issue in a thread entitled: Christians FOR Gay Marriage... they are and always have been?

I was referring to the habit that Christians have of referring to "the Law" that Jesus supposedly preserved, when they want to condemn homosexuality and same sex marriage, while ignoring any and all of the others, cherry picking "the law" as it's convenient for their own personal biases.

What business is it of others what a religion believes if it does not affect them?

When the religious believe that laws don't apply to them unless they reflect their own personal religious biases, whether those laws are about eating lobster or following the SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality, and then, when they try to legislate laws that compel non-believers to abide by their religiously based ideals, it affects all of us adversely.

Why is it your business to be concerned what religions believe?

That's an ironic question, given the fact that religions are in the business of telling what we're supposed to believe. At any rate, see my answer above.

a reply to: Boadicea

FYI for anyone interested, here is a very different perspective on Saul of Tarsus based on the earliest known manuscripts, as opposed to the King James "version":

You got me there. Have searched all of my library and cannot find this manuscript at all. Can you tell me where to find the history and translator as well as the publisher of said manuscript? You say it is an early known manuscript but Charlesworth and other scholars I searched have no record of such manuscript existing. I would like to know what language it is scribed in and who translated that or transliterated it and the interpreters of the article you posted. All manuscripts of worth are registered with a history and that is what puzzles me.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Boadicea

Have searched all of my library and cannot find this manuscript at all. Can you tell me where to find the history and translator as well as the publisher of said manuscript?

Really? That's where you want to go? Okay. I'll play. Readers deserve that much.

Early Manuscripts Cited in article (note the plural for "manuscripts"):

Plutarch

Latin Vulgate Bible

Dead Sea Scrolls

Josephus -- Antiquities of the Jews

ETA: Well looky what I found right here on ATS:

Paul: Rome's version of the Trojan Horse

Posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 in February 2013, 46 stars and 15 pages... I obviously haven't read it all yet, but knowing ATS, I'm sure there are plenty of gems to found in those many many pages and posts!

a reply to: windword

When the religious believe that laws don't apply to them unless they reflect their own personal religious biases, whether those laws are about eating lobster or following the SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality, and then, when they try to legislate laws that compel non-believers to abide by their religiously based ideals, it affects all of us adversely.

Eating lobsters are a matter of dietary Hebrew law. Following the SCOTUS laws are a matter of U.S. civil law. I think we covered all of that several times. Religions, per say, cannot legislate U.S. civil law. I am religious but have no say or influence in anyone eating a lobster or influencing the SCOTUS. When I vote I have never seen lobster or religion on any ballot. Now it is true that most Blacks and Hispanics are more apt to vote on those premises but other than that I have never been aware of what you have postulated.

a reply to: Seede

I have never been aware of what you have postulated.

What in the world do you think I've postulated?

a reply to: windword

What in the world do you think I've postulated?

Your doing better, You took one half of a sentence out of context and did not address any issue. Thanks for your time.

a reply to: Boadicea

Posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 in February 2013, 46 stars and 15 pages... I obviously haven't read it all yet, but knowing ATS, I'm sure there are plenty of gems to found in those many many pages and posts!

Yes i am quite aware of that spiel and was not impressed with 46 stars and 15 pages of Paul bashing. ATS is chocked full of Paul bashers who use that avenue to practice their trade. 3NLIGHT 's spiel was also full of many errors and his hatred for the chosen of Christ Jesus showed his true intent.

Now as to the manuscript of the "Gospel of Paul" I find nothing that exists of that manuscript. I see a lot of your so called sources but nothing of the existence of that manuscript. I hope to get that information so that I can add it to my library. Perhaps 3NLIGHT could shed more light on that mysterious manuscript. I also searched the listings of Dead Sea Scrolls and found nothing of a "Gospel of Paul." As you listed one of your sources as the Dead Sea Scrolls surely you must have the transcript of the manuscript or at least give a hint of which cave it was located and the translator it was assigned to.

a reply to: Seede

Regardless of your disjointed attempts to distract and confuse my posts, the blatant and "in your face" Christian hypocrisy remains embarrassingly obvious!

Christians choose to use Old Testament Biblical law to condemn homosexuals, yet they don't follow the law that they claim that Jesus preserved. Christians have abolished the laws regarding the Sabbath, circumcision, hospitality laws, social laws and dietary laws, feasts and rituals....etc., etc., etc..............and then they have to unmitigated gall to claim moral superiority!

Your doing better

You are not.

a reply to: Seede

"The Gospel of Paul" is the title of the article I linked to, not a specific manuscript, in reference to the common definition of "gospel" as the teachings of Christ; specifically as preached by "Paul," aka Saul of Tarsus. But you know that already, right? You just had to pull something out of your hat to try to refute the known facts contained therein.

Other definitions for "Gospel," from Dictionary.com:

1. the teachings of Jesus and the apostles; the Christian revelation.
2. the story of Christ's life and teachings, especially as contained in the first four books of the New Testament, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
3. (usually initial capital letter) any of these four books.
4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed: to take his report for gospel.
5. a doctrine regarded as of prime importance: political gospel.
6. glad tidings, especially concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.
7. (often initial capital letter) Ecclesiastical. an extract from one of the four Gospels, forming part of the Eucharistic service in certain churches.

Definitions #4 and #5 do bring up a rather thorny issue, however, in that Constantine's Council of Nicea did not consider Saul of Tarsus' many writings to reach the level of "Gospel," and are relegated to "Epistle" status. Hmmmmm...

One must also wonder about those manuscripts (gospels) which did not meet the approval of these church fathers and were burned or otherwise destroyed, thus denying us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Such as the "Secret Gospel of Mark."

It seems to me that the "inspired" nature of what is included in the Bible is that DESPITE the many efforts of man to deny truth according to their will, enough truth was included in the Bible for those who have eyes to see and ears to listen to discern the truth.

As for the ATS thread I linked to, I don't agree with the conclusions made by/in the OP; however, it does highlight the many inconsistencies, discrepancies, and contradictions that are inherent in the King James Version of the Bible.

a reply to: Boadicea

"The Gospel of Paul" is the title of the article I linked to, not a specific manuscript, in reference to the common definition of "gospel" as the teachings of Christ; specifically as preached by "Paul," aka Saul of Tarsus. But you know that already, right? You just had to pull something out of your hat to try to refute the known facts contained therein.

I believe you totally took this the wrong way. I was sincere in that I wanted the manuscript information in my library and I do admit that I have read many such articles deriding Paul. I did take a search of both NT and OT listings of manuscripts and could not find it. That is the truth and that is why I was so testy about this being kept from the public.

I do not believe the article you posted was meant to be informative but instead to bash Paul once again. It is full of misinformation in many ways and has been concocted to distort Christianity. That article did not even post the author, date of posting or any other such information of authenticity. It simply was printed in care of The Nazarene Way fringe internet scam. A mixed group that feeds just enough truth to get attention. I know them quite well.

Supposing the article was correct, which it is not, You would have to reconsider the entire NT as well as tons of outside literature. Here is why the Satan's must destroy Paul. If you destroy Paul you then discredit 13 books of the NT. That is half of the Christian theology of 26 books. Then you must destroy Luke who is the scribe of Acts who scribes Paul 129 times. That is two more books. Then you must destroy Peter for calling Paul his beloved brother in 2Peter 3:15. That is two more books. That is at the least 17 books of the NT which leaves nine books to censor and make a New Testament. That does not include Hebrews whom the author is uncertain.

Now I will guarantee you this much. If that ever comes about, that is just the beginning of the destruction of the scriptures. If that were to ever happen it would destroy the faith of almost all Christianity. That is the battle plan today of almost all of the Paul bashers on this forum. Some are ignorant pawns and some are deliberate trolls of ATS. but are all united in this effort.

Now I have not even mentioned people who loved Paul such as John Mark and Barnabas and in the Hebrew literature the entire Ecclesia of the Original Synagogue of James. This is but one of the reasons I defend Paul. If Paul is so evil as to need human reprimand then no one is able to be forgiven by Christ Jesus. Everyone had then best dissolve Christianity because this tradition could never be trusted as was in the past.

a reply to: windword
Christians choose to use Old Testament Biblical law to condemn homosexuals, yet they don't follow the law that they claim that Jesus preserved. Christians have abolished the laws regarding the Sabbath, circumcision, hospitality laws, social laws and dietary laws, feasts and rituals....etc., etc., etc..............and then they have to unmitigated gall to claim moral superiority!

You see, you are right back to square one because you will not open your mind and learn. Look at your last post. You can not get it through your head that Jesus did not preserve civil or dietary law. Jesus obeyed the dietary and civil laws of His day but His new covenant given to all people, by His death, does not include the old laws of diet and civil practice in His day.

Homosexuality is one of the original seven Noahide laws given to Adam first and passed down to all humanity. Those laws are still in effect today for all people. Forget the ten commandments and forget the Levitical laws of Homosexuality. Forget about the Hebrews or Jews. Let's talk about the seven Nohide laws. Those laws pertain to all people regardless of who they are or what they believe. Those seven laws are to govern all people for the life of humanity, Regardless of who or where you are these laws were given by the God of Jesus to all people of all times. If you don't want to accept them then that is your business but in your judgment day you can never use the excuse that you did not know.

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.

These laws were given hundreds of years before Hebrew or Jew or Jesus were even thought of. God then included these same laws and added three more laws in a covenant to Moses but the seven laws still applied to all people with out a covenant regardless whether you were a Hebrew or a dog faced gentile. What you are to follow is the seven Laws of Adam which are listed above.

Now you can try to skirt around this and do the political correctness routine and have your feel good ideas but that does not change the laws of humanity with the God of Christ Jesus. Homosexuality and lesbianism is unnatural and is an abomination to God. If you approve of this then you embrace that practice.
That is my last word on this matter--

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Boadicea

"The Gospel of Paul" is the title of the article I linked to, not a specific manuscript, in reference to the common definition of "gospel" as the teachings of Christ; specifically as preached by "Paul," aka Saul of Tarsus. But you know that already, right? You just had to pull something out of your hat to try to refute the known facts contained therein.

I believe you totally took this the wrong way. I was sincere in that I wanted the manuscript information in my library...

My apologies. I thought it was clear from the context of the article; I obviously presumed too much and my snark was unwarranted and deserved. Shame on me.

I do not believe the article you posted was meant to be informative but instead to bash Paul once again.

I would say it is informative; it is meant to question the exalted status of Paul, and is only "bashing" if one refuses to consider anything less.

It is full of misinformation in many ways...

Please be more specific. I have no personal knowledge; I only know what others with personal knowledge wrote. If you have other sources discrediting these sources, I'm open to another perspective.

...and has been concocted to distort Christianity.

And others say "Paul" and his stories were concocted to distort Christianity as well.

That article did not even post the author, date of posting or any other such information of authenticity. It simply was printed in care of The Nazarene Way...

Perhaps because too many people focus on the messenger and not the message. The source documents for the article are clearly named. The information must be able to stand (or fall) on its own merits.

Supposing the article was correct, which it is not, You would have to reconsider the entire NT as well as tons of outside literature.

No, not the entire NT. The four gospels, presumably written by or at the very least taught by -- those apostles hand-picked by Jesus, who personally learned from Jesus, spoke to Jesus, and witnessed his earthly ministry, are not subject to the same doubts, questions and skepticism as Saul of Tarsus and his self-proclaimed apostleship. Though they have their own doubts, questions and skepticism.

Here is why the Satan's must destroy Paul. If you destroy Paul you then discredit 13 books of the NT. That is half of the Christian theology of 26 books. Then you must destroy Luke who is the scribe of Acts who scribes Paul 129 times. That is two more books. Then you must destroy Peter for calling Paul his beloved brother in 2Peter 3:15.

Maybe... or maybe it was/is Saul of Tarsus being used by Satan to destroy the true message of Jesus and what should be the true message of Christianity: Love for one another, the royal law, which Jesus came to fulfill.

Now I will guarantee you this much. If that ever comes about, that is just the beginning of the destruction of the scriptures. If that were to ever happen it would destroy the faith of almost all Christianity. That is the battle plan today of almost all of the Paul bashers on this forum. Some are ignorant pawns and some are deliberate trolls of ATS. but are all united in this effort.

Oh ye of little faith... The kingdom of Heaven is within -- Not in man's word. The truth cannot be destroyed. Nor can truth destroy true faith. The most that will happen if Saul of Tarsus is discredited and/or destroyed is that Christians will be able to focus rightfully and righteously on the message of Jesus. Christianity will not be destroyed; only Paulianity.

Now I have not even mentioned people who loved Paul such as John Mark and Barnabas and in the Hebrew literature the entire Ecclesia of the Original Synagogue of James. This is but one of the reasons I defend Paul.

Because true Christians know we must love one another, because Jesus loved us first... they were not perfect, not all-knowing and all-seeing. If Paul was a false prohpet, their mistake was in putting their faith in him, not in loving him.

If Paul is so evil as to need human reprimand then no one is able to be forgiven by Christ Jesus. Everyone had then best dissolve Christianity because this tradition could never be trusted as was in the past.

The forgiveness of Jesus is not dependent on Paul's legitimacy in any way, shape or form. Jesus is who He is and always has been and always will be... the Alpha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End.

a reply to: Seede

You can not get it through your head that Jesus did not preserve civil or dietary law. Jesus obeyed the dietary and civil laws of His day but His new covenant given to all people, by His death, does not include the old laws of diet and civil practice in His day.

You can't have it both ways!

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished

Jesus' death didn't abolish the rule of law of circumcision did it? The Sabbath? The celebration of the Feasts? The hospitality laws?

Jesus did not preserve civil or dietary law

Jesus of the Gospels never took a red pen to the Law, any of it! To say that he did is a lie!

Once again, Christians who use the "Law" to condemn homosexuals, but don't honor the "law" themselves, who work on Sabbath for example, are hypocrites. According to the Christian God, one sin is just a bad as any other, except for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Homosexuality is no more vile as sin than lying, in God's eyes!

a reply to: Seede

Homosexuality is one of the original seven Noahide laws given to Adam first and passed down to all humanity.

Nowhere does the Bible record what laws God may have given Adam, other than the command to be fruitful and to fill and subdue the earth, and the commandment against the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Nowhere does the Bible record these Noahide laws, especially the condemnation of homosexuality, being given to Noah.

a reply to: Boadicea

My apologies. I thought it was clear from the context of the article; I obviously presumed too much and my snark was unwarranted and deserved. Shame on me.

You also have my apology in being suspicious of baiting me into another bash.

Let me start with identifying myself. My perspective is from the fact that I am old school first century belief. My church is the first Synagogue of James the brother of Christ Jesus. That is if it still existed today. I am not of the Roman organizations or what they have spawned. I use the KJV only as a comparative bible but my book is the Eth Cepher which contains your NT and Masoretic OT and the Apocrypha plus many other books such as Enoch, Jublilees, Jasher etc.- All of my dates are from the Jewish time line encyclopedia and I depend upon Me’Am Loez for the oral Torah. I think that this is important to identify myself as being very prejudiced as a Christian with Orthodox Jewish roots.

The very first section of the Gospel of Paul states that Saul/Paul did not ever meet Jesus. I do not accept this whatsoever. Saul/Paul sat under Gamaliel the elder son of Hillel who in turn was the president (Nasi) of the Sanhedrin. In Jewish tradition Paul was the most admired and intelligent pupil of Gamaliel and was appointed by Gamaliel to the Sanhedrin.

This would have placed Saul/Paul on the board of Justice as a young man in his late twenties or early thirties. Our tradition cites that Paul was in authority to oversee an execution that was approved by Roman law to its subjects. That is why the execution of St. Stephen was overseen by Saul/Paul as the executioners laid the garments at Saul/Paul’s feet. A member of the Sanhedrin must witness an execution and verify that it was carried out in the manner as prescribed. That is also sent to Rome because Roman Courts must always write a warrant for any death of their charge and receive a verification of that sentence. That is recorded by Luke as a scribe for Paul in your NT.

This also tells us that Saul/Paul was very familiar with the trial of Jesus and probably as a member of the Sanhedrin voted Jesus guilty. The Entire Sanhedrin of seventy one members was involved in this trial so if Saul/Paul was a member it is almost certain that he wanted Jesus dead by stoning, Jesus was acquitted from this trial by the Sanhedrin.

When Saul was stricken on the road to Damascus with blindness, he never questioned the voice of Jesus after Jesus told him that -

Act_9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Now our tradition tells us that Saul knew who Jesus was and that he even might have questioned Jesus at His trial. Here we note that Saul did not need to know who Jesus was and he never inquired as to who this Jesus was. Most Christians are taught that “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest” meant capturing Christians or followers of this sect but our tradition teaches us that Paul was aware of exactly who Jesus was when Jesus said exactly who he was. He was Jesus whom Saul wanted dead. We believe that they might have even spoken to one another in the trial of hewn stones.

So here we do know by theology that Saul did meet Jesus as a blind man regardless of physical handshakes. Paul also spoke to Jesus after the blindness and had direct communication with the Lord Jesus

Act_18:9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:
Act_23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer,Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Even Peter the rock said –
2Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

Paul also visited the first Eccelsia of James and was dearly loved by all of the Apostles and Disciples.

So if one denies this, then that one must also deny Luke who was the author of Acts. Was it Paul who lied or was it the scribe Luke who lied. You see Paul did not record his own merits. It was Luke who either lied or recorded the truth. Now if Paul was a scoundrel then Luke was also a scoundrel

You wrote -
"No, not the entire NT. The four gospels, presumably written by or at the very least taught by -- those apostles hand-picked by Jesus, who personally learned from Jesus, spoke to Jesus, and witnessed his earthly ministry, are not subject to the same doubts, questions and skepticism as Saul of Tarsus and his self-proclaimed apostleship. Though they have their own doubts, questions and skepticism."

That is exactly my point. If you destroy Paul then you must destroy the liar Luke also because Luke is the witness and author of Paul. Paul did not write Acts. Luke wrote Acts and Luke was the third Apostle who you just said was hand picked by Jesus. Luke was Paul’s companion and if you destroy Paul you must destroy Luke for lying. You see my point very clearly. If you destroy Luke then you have destroyed the Gospels of Christianity. If Satan used Paul then Satan had to also have used Luke.

That is just the very beginning of the Gospel of Paul article. If I were to continue I would have to write a paper or booklet to challenge that article.

Windword

Bet you didn't know this.
This was back in the good ole days when men were men and women were glad they were.

The Noahide Laws are growing in popularity. They have even reached the U. S. Congress:

“The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation that was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the U. S., George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the U.S. of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day.”

Well…isn’t that just sneaky! And here we thought the U.S. was founded on the top Ten. Oops, guess we were wrong, huh? Sadly, this is not just for the state of Yisra’el (Israel) or even the U. S., but for the whole world:

"This obligation, to teach all the peoples of the earth about the Laws of Noah, is incumbent upon every individual in every era" -- (Mishnah Torah, Law of Kings 8:10).

bewareofthenoahidelaws.followersofyah.com...

originally posted by: Seede
..........
Following the SCOTUS laws are a matter of U.S. civil law. I think we covered all of that several times. Religions, per say, cannot legislate U.S. civil law. I am religious but have no say or influence in anyone eating a lobster or influencing the SCOTUS. When I vote I have never seen lobster or religion on any ballot. Now it is true that most Blacks and Hispanics are more apt to vote on those premises but other than that I have never been aware of what you have postulated.

This is incorrect and the height of ignorance.The SCOTUS do not make "laws" to be followed and saying that "Blacks and Hispanics are more apt to vote" on these premises(eating lobster) is the worse type of racism.