Cause and effect v.2.0

[paul_valaru]

Mark 7:18-19

[18] And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, [19] since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

At the end of Mark 7:19 most Bible translations say, "Thus He declared all foods clean." So its pretty clear that Yeshua ("Jesus") changed the old food regulations in Leviticus 11, and its ok to eat pork, shellfish, or whatever we want, right?

The most important clue for understanding any passage in the Bible is to check the context. In this case, its given in Mark 7:1-5 where Yeshua is asked, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the Tradition of the Elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" (v.5).

Notice two things: first, the question isn't about the Torah ("Law"), but about a tradition. Second, its not a question about what may be eaten. It's about whether one may eat at all without a ritual handwashing.

That explains why Yeshua responded by saying, "Neglecting the Commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men," (v.8) and, "You have a fine way of setting aside the Commandment of God in order to keep your tradition" (v.9).

So then, could verses 18-19 have Yeshua setting aside a commandment of God when up until that point He had been criticizing the Pharisees for that very thing (v. 8,9,13)?

And could verses 18-19 have Yeshua talking about a commandment at all, when up until that point His subject had been a "Tradition of the Elders" (v. 3,4,5,8,9,13)?

Lastly, could verses 18-19 suddenly be about food when up until that point the subject had been ritual handwashing (v. 2,3,4,5)? Obviously, no. This is made even clearer by comparing the same discussion as reported by Matthew (15:1-20). Yeshua concludes by saying, "but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

Because the subject of Mark 7:1-19 isn't Kashrut (Biblical diet), it cannot be about abolishing Kashrut either. Ok, but why do so many translations* seem to say that it is?

Again consider the context, but in this case the social context. This discussion took place in a social and historical context different than our own. Language and practice were based on the Word of God. For instance, their holidays were those days set apart in the Bible for special observance, not ours. Their property rights were those of the Bible, not ours. Likewise, only those things that are not taw-may ("defiled", "unclean") were considered food, everything else was not. Reading Mark 7:19 as they would have, it means,
"Thus He declared all things given-by- God-as-food to be clean, regardless of ritual hand washing."

hence it is not about removing Kosher laws, back then they where all jews and in jewish tradition if it is not kosher it is not food.

 

[Gonz]

No damned wonder the non-believers have a hard time keeping up....the rules were fairly well set in stone until the mid-60s. Today we have this

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action yesterday by the church's national assembly.

Either it's Gods word or it ain't. Could y'all make up yer mind?
source

 

[paul_valaru]

Religious leader adopts anti-Bible stance

I am a Christian. I happen to align myself with the Baptist faith within that school of thought.

As such, I hold the belief that the Bible is the ordained inspired word of God written by His chosen mortals to be used by us until His return. I happen to believe that it means exactly, precisely, and literally what it says. This means it does not need to be "updated for modern times".

I realize others do not hold these beliefs. That's every person's choice.

The last time I checked, Episcopalians considered themselves Christians.

The last time I checked, the Bible considers homosexuality a sin.

The last time I checked, the Bible does not allow the ordination of women to preach.

And we wonder why others don't listen to our message.

Fire away.

And back to the beginning.

women as preachers.

What Does the Bible Say About Women Preachers?

There is not one Scripture in the Bible that forbids women from preaching, but on the contrary, there are many verses that encourage both men and women to preach the Gospel.


The Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons, and He will use any and all who will yield to Him, regardless of race, age, or sex.

Galatians 3:28 - "...neither male nor female...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Acts 10:34 - "...God is no respecter of persons...."

Moses said in Numbers 11:29, "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His spirit upon them!"

The crying need of the hour is for more laborers. It is a trick of the enemy to try to down rate thousands of our faithful laborers just because they were born females.


The Great Commission, Mark 16:15, "Preach the Gospel," is to ALL believers, and to all the church of Jesus Christ. The command to "preach the Gospel" is to both male and female.


It is an undeniable fact that God has called and anointed thousands of women to preach the Gospel. The Full Gospel organizations have hundreds of licensed and ordained women who are preaching, teaching, evangelizing, pastoring, and doing mission work with the signs following their ministry. God is using them for the salvation of the lost, deliverance from sin, gifts of the Spirit, and infilling of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible says, "Touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm." And may we be reminded of the Scripture in Acts 5:39, "If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

When someone says, "God does not call women to preach," it is like saying that God does not baptize with the Holy Spirit today. We know better, because we have witnessed and experienced it with our own ears and eyes.

I would be afraid to condemn women preachers, lest I would be found to be fighting against God, and to be committing the vile sin of attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil.


Women preachers are a fulfillment of Bible Prophecy and another sign of Christ's soon return to earth (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-18).


The Bible declares that women will prophesy: 1 Cor. 11:5, "For every woman that prayeth or prophesieth...."

Both the Hebrew (Nebrah), and Greek (Proph) used for prophetess means (female preacher). (See Young's Concordance, Pg. 780.)

The word "Prophet" means a public expounder.

The word "Prophesy" means to speak forth, or flow forth. The Bible says in 1 Cor. 14:3, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto MEN to edification, and exhortation and comfort."

The dictionary says, prophesy is "to speak under divine inspiration...to preach."

Therefore we learn from the original translation, from the Bible interpretation, and from the dictionary, that to prophesy means more than to tell the future, but it is to speak publicly about the past, present, or future. It is to preach under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

The Old and New Testament prophets and prophetesses were preachers of God's Word.

Even if the words prophet and preacher could be separated, how could anyone prophesy to bring exhortation, comfort and edification to the church, if she were forbidden to speak in church and was to keep silent?

Would God inspire and anoint someone to do something that was wrong and sinful???

* (There is a difference between a prophet, and the gift of prophecy.)


God called and used women preachers in the Old Testament.


a. DEBORAH - Judges 4:4-5. Deborah was a Judge for both civil and criminal cases. The children of Israel came to her for judgment. She was the chief ruler of Israel for 40 years, giving orders to the Generals and all the army. She did the work of an evangelist, prophetess, Judge, and a preacher. God gave her authority over the mighty (Judges 5:13).

b. MIRIAM - Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1; Micah 6:4. She was a Prophetess and a Song Leader in Israel.

c. HULDAH - 2 Kings 22:14. Five men went to Sister Huldah and communed with her. She spoke to a congregation of men concerning the book of the Law. A female preached to a man's congregation, and her message was taken to the nation and produced a revival.

d. MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ'S MOTHER - Isaiah 8:3. She was a prophetess.



God called and used women preachers in the New Testament.
a. The first message of the Resurrection of Christ was spoken by women to a group of men.

b. Anna - Luke 2:36-38. She must have prophesied in church, because she did not depart from the temple.

c. Phillip had 4 daughters who prophesied. Acts 21:9.

d. Priscilla assisted Paul in his revival meeting and even taught Apollos in the way of the Lord more perfectly.

e. Phebe - Romans 16:1-2. Paul commended Phebe to the Church at Rome and requested that they assist her in her business. She was one of Paul's assistants in the work of the Lord and delivered the Book of Romans to the people from the hand of Paul.


There is no sound reason why a woman or man should not preach the Gospel. There is a desperate need in the church for more workers. Laborers are few, and God will use any and all who will go for Him. Some say God will not use a woman to preach, because "The woman was deceived," but remember Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world." It seems to indicate that Adam was just as guilty as Eve in the fall of man. If anyone should be kept from preaching because of sin, it would be Adam. But God does not forbid anyone from preaching, because of Adam's or Eve's sin.


1 Cor. 14: 34-35 does not say anything about women preachers. If Paul intended this verse as a general rule to bar all women from speaking in church, then they cannot teach Sunday School, testify, pray, prophesy, sing, or even get saved, and this would contradict the rest of the Bible (Acts 2:4; Acts 2:16-18).

Paul was rather dealing with a particular problem in the church. Women were not educated as were the men in that day; therefore the women would talk back and forth to their husbands in church and ask questions concerning the sermon. Paul said, "If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." If they want to talk things over let them wait until they get home. This rule is still good for the church today, where people are talking and causing confusion in the church service. They should not speak in church. (Not in the back of the church either before or after services.)

If a woman cannot speak in church, then she cannot speak in prayer meeting, young people's service, etc., for who can deny that Sunday School and Prayer meeting, and Youth work are parts of church? Christ's Church is not a building, but rather it is found where two or three are gathered together in His name, whether at a street meeting, in a tent, a home, church, classroom or anywhere else.


1 Timothy 2:12 is not a blanket rule for all women of all churches. If it were, then the women could not speak at all, for the same verse that tells them not to teach also tells them to be silent.

If all women had to keep silent in church, then that would be promoting disobedience to God, for they could not prophesy, pray, testify, sing, exhort, do personal work, or even get saved.

Whenever an interpretation to a verse contradicts the rest of the teaching of the Bible, we know this interpretation is incorrect, for the Holy Spirit will never contradict His own Word.

This is the chief verse that is used to oppose women preaching and yet it says nothing about preaching, nor does it say anything about a public worship or church service. But, on the contrary, this verse is giving instructions to wives as to how they were to conduct themselves in regard to their husband. Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:35, "And if they will LEARN anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Now he states in 1 Tim. 2:12 that the woman should learn in silence, and should not usurp authority over the man. Paul is dealing with more of a home problem than a church problem.

This verse still applies to us today. It is wrong for a woman to usurp authority over her husband (in church, home, or any place else) as was the case in Paul's day. She should not try to teach him or speak words that would cause discord and confusion, but should rather be silent and in subjection to her husband.

It is also to be understood that if anyone, whether man or woman, is usurping authority over the God-given leadership of the church, she or he is to be silent, and not to teach, or act in such a way that would create discord in the assembly.


Some have used Titus 1:6-7, "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children...", but there is a difference between a preacher and a bishop. For I was an Evangelist and now am a Pastor, but I am not a Bishop (Overseer), and most Pastors are not.

If God called a single man with no children to be a Bishop, as Paul was, surely this verse is not opposed to it, nor would this scripture oppose a woman Bishop if she was called of God for the work, as was Deborah.

What this verse does teach is that a person who is to be a Bishop must not have two living companions, either husbands or wives.

The Bible often speaks of "man" when it refers to both men and and women inclusively. The word "mankind" also includes both men and women. For an example of this word usage see 1 Cor. 13:1 - "Though I speak with the tongues of MEN and angels...." This word "MEN" includes women as well, for we do not have one language for men and another for women.


To condemn women preachers and women church workers is a serious offense, because God has stamped His approval on them by His Spirit over and over again, and who is man to fight against the Spirit of God?

To condemn women preachers and women church workers is in a sense to claim they are doing wrong and committing sin...and all those who support them and listen to them are having a part in that sin.

For anyone to do this, he must condemn approximately 99% of all the Spirit-filled believers and the vast majority of all of Christianity.

"Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons..." (Acts 10:34).

the homosexuality as a sin in the bible is still a matter of interpitation.

I realize others do not hold these beliefs. That's every person's choice.

and it is this churces choice to interpet the bible in their own way.

 

[paul_valaru]

No damned wonder the non-believers have a hard time keeping up....the rules were fairly well set in stone until the mid-60s. Today we have this

the "rules" have been in flux for thousands of years as social ecomomic educational changes happened, there are only 10 rules set in stone, and even those change upon translation.

If you want to learn the RULES learn ancient hebrew, and go to the source.

 

[Gonz]

Over those thousands of years, how many back did anyone once say Mother, Child and Womb in reference to God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit?

It's a lovely, warm, pleasant, uplifting thought to change the phrase from such a sexist paternal hate mongering thing to such a heartwarming thing as mommy dearest but c'mon.

 

[Gotholic]

Genesis 19: 1-28

The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where certain sex acts have become referred to as "Sodomy". The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: "Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: 'Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them." Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must accept the fact that the entire city consisted of homosexuals. If we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising "I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten" (verse 33). God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten "righteous men" could be found I the city. If we are to accept the Watchtower's logic, this would mean that the "righteous men" referred to were heterosexuals. At this point, we need to ask ourselves: What would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual? The obvious answer is: Impossible.
If homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated men is 'enowsh which, literally translated, means "mortal".


This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were. The Hebrew word for "man" (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different.

One has to ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
The passage translated as "Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them" needs further examination as well. Other Bible translations read "so that we may know them". The Hebrew word herewith translated as "have intercourse", or "know" is yada.


This word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. In all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone. Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he would have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.

The correct translation, therefore, should be rendered something to the effect of: "Where are the mortals who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them."
So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey? Two verses elsewhere in the Bible sum up the story this way: "Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]" - Ezekiel 16: 49, 50. It is commonly assumed that the "detestable thing" referred to in this passage is homosexuality. In fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow'ebah, which translated literally means "to commit idol worship".


This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: "Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes." One must ask: If Lot's house was surrounded by homosexuals, why would he offer the mob women? Note that these women were virgins. Note also that the Sodomites were pagans. Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice Sodom. Therefore, it can be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: "and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come". This corroborates Ezekiel's summation, once again showing that these were "ungodly persons", in other words, idolaters, not worshippers of the true God.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is a condemnation of idol worshippers, a greedy and inhospitable society. The judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!

so to start, it is questionable that the story of sodom and gamora had ANYTHING to do with gays

Jude 1:7

[7] just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

At the end of Mark 7:19 most Bible translations say, "Thus He declared all foods clean." So its pretty clear that Yeshua ("Jesus") changed the old food regulations in Leviticus 11, and its ok to eat pork, shellfish, or whatever we want, right?

The most important clue for understanding any passage in the Bible is to check the context. In this case, its given in Mark 7:1-5 where Yeshua is asked, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the Tradition of the Elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" (v.5).

Notice two things: first, the question isn't about the Torah ("Law"), but about a tradition. Second, its not a question about what may be eaten. It's about whether one may eat at all without a ritual handwashing.

That explains why Yeshua responded by saying, "Neglecting the Commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men," (v.8) and, "You have a fine way of setting aside the Commandment of God in order to keep your tradition" (v.9).

So then, could verses 18-19 have Yeshua setting aside a commandment of God when up until that point He had been criticizing the Pharisees for that very thing (v. 8,9,13)?

And could verses 18-19 have Yeshua talking about a commandment at all, when up until that point His subject had been a "Tradition of the Elders" (v. 3,4,5,8,9,13)?

Lastly, could verses 18-19 suddenly be about food when up until that point the subject had been ritual handwashing (v. 2,3,4,5)? Obviously, no. This is made even clearer by comparing the same discussion as reported by Matthew (15:1-20). Yeshua concludes by saying, "but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

Because the subject of Mark 7:1-19 isn't Kashrut (Biblical diet), it cannot be about abolishing Kashrut either. Ok, but why do so many translations* seem to say that it is?

Again consider the context, but in this case the social context. This discussion took place in a social and historical context different than our own. Language and practice were based on the Word of God. For instance, their holidays were those days set apart in the Bible for special observance, not ours. Their property rights were those of the Bible, not ours. Likewise, only those things that are not taw-may ("defiled", "unclean") were considered food, everything else was not. Reading Mark 7:19 as they would have, it means,
"Thus He declared all things given-by- God-as-food to be clean, regardless of ritual hand washing."

hence it is not about removing Kosher laws, back then they where all jews and in jewish tradition if it is not kosher it is not food.

Mark 7:1-23

[1]
Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,


[2] they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
[3] (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
[4] and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
[5] And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?"
[6] And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
[7] in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'
[8] You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men."
[9]
And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!


[10] For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother'; and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die';
[11] but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) --
[12] then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
[13] thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."
[14]
And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:


[15] there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."
[17] And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
[18] And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him,
[19] since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
[20] And he said, "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man.
[21] For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
[22] coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
[23] All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

There you go. The whole story in context. It is obviously food that is being mentioned.

 

[Gotholic]

No damned wonder the non-believers have a hard time keeping up....the rules were fairly well set in stone until the mid-60s. Today we have this

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action yesterday by the church's national assembly.

Either it's Gods word or it ain't. Could y'all make up yer mind?
source

Over those thousands of years, how many back did anyone once say Mother, Child and Womb in reference to God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit?

It's a lovely, warm, pleasant, uplifting thought to change the phrase from such a sexist paternal hate mongering thing to such a heartwarming thing as mommy dearest but c'mon.

I know! It is so disheartening. There are over 35,000 protestant denominations - everyone having some degree of difference in faith.

However, the Roman Catholic Church has remained the same since its own foundation by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago - never having conformed - a true rebel in todays society.

 

[Leslie]

Yes, they would. All except homosexualty and bestiality that you have mentioned.

How?

The first one is saying that while it's all well and good to wash before you eat, it doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to be good in all other facets in your life, so smarten up.

Colossians only says go forth and partay. It says nothing about changing any laws there.

You're right, but Jesus goes further with the passage I have given.

Jesus is also referring to food in that passage (which should be quite obvious). Eating foods that were against Jewish dietary laws was thought to defile the person.



You skipped the food and drink part, which the Jews had laws to follow on what to eat and drink.

sorry. Parties and what you eat and drink.

He's saying don't let yourselves be judged for what you do to party/celebrate/eat/drink.

Acts 10:9-16

[9] The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
[10] And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
[11] and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth.
[12] In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
[13] And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
[14] But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
[15] And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common."
[16] This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

God made an offering of food. Peter wasn't obeiscent. God in all his glory was offended. This wasn't a dictum for the whole of humanity.

Romans 14:1-4

[1] As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions.
[2] One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables.
[3] Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him.
[4] Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand.

That's speaking on judgement. i.e. veganism vs. carnivorism. Not on dietary laws.

1 Timothy 4:1-5

[1] Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
[2] through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,
[3] who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
[4] For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving;
[5] for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Everything created by God is good? Like foxglove?

Or just foods God created to be received? (On that line, he wouldn't be expecting to be received things that he's already proclaimed as inedible, now would he?)[/quote]

You have a misunderstanding here. First off, Jesus is God.

I misunderstand nothing.
As there are two (according to you) polar opposite opinions on this I've referred to them as individual speakers in this case.

Now...

Matthew 5:17

[17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

Circumcision is fulfilled in baptism. The Passover is fulfilled in the Mass. The animal sacrifice for one's sin is no longer needed since Christ is the sacrifical lamb that died for all of our sins.

From that entire scenario I take - God will no longer smite sinners. Jesus took on the prior sins to stop this happening. Everyone follows the rules, they get to go to heaven, and if they don't, tough shit. There is no 'abolishing the rules' anywhere.

It's nice for you that your church has created these nice little ceremonies to 'fulfill' the rules. Lets hope for your sake that your God agrees with it in the end.

Also, although Jesus did not mention homosexuality he did not mention incest or beastiality either. But that doesn't mean He condoned it.

There's nothing says he didn't.

There are no positive passages on homosexuality.

1 Samuel

18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. [/quote]Get real.

However, there are negative ones:

Romans 1:26-27

[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

There's one. Not spoken by God or his AlterEgo though.

1 Timothy 1:8-11

[8] Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
[9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
[10] immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
[11] in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

See below when I speak on your speaking on mistranslations.

There are none!

Yes there ARE!! Go read on Ruth and Naomi again. With a 2006 mind, not a 210 mind.

Some Bibles are very inaccurate - some purposely done too.

Inaccurate? Of course they are. Years of misinterpretation, guesswork, many of the terms translated as homosexual don't even mean homosexual. One is more aptly translated as high priest. Will find that one in the morning. As in...NOT saying don't have homosexual affairs, but more dont' sleep with the high priest for favours. But it works out better for the church if it says no gheys, right? It's funny, that your Timothy quote, in my King James Bible, says something about homosexuality (though in Hebrew, it's that word that means high priest) in that list. Yours says nothing of the kind. I honestly don't know why you put it there, unless you just assumed it said what your says. Hard to translate words that have no meaning in our own language eh? Impossible to get it right?

Inaccurate, absolutely. Written by people who werent' even there hundreds of years after events occurred. How could it possibly be accurate?

Don't forget the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

which has nothing to do with anything here. Unless we're on about the graven images thing which was totally abolished by Jesus and his crucifixion, right?

You attack what you do not understand.

I understand very well.

The laws were fulfilled through Jesus (read Hebrews for an extensive explanation). Moral laws always remain the same. The Old Covenant is replaced with the New Covenant. So the civil/cermonial laws no longer apply.

The Old Covenant (whereby God smites people) is over. Jesus paid for the sins, we now have free will. To follow the rules or not. I see nowhere that the rules don't apply. Where it specifically states that only some of the old rules still apply. Where it specifically states that ANY of the rules don't apply.

Note: Remember (or this just might be a news flash to you) Man was originally a vegetarian. It was later that God allowed man to eat meat then had regulations. These kinds of laws have changed but moral laws never do.

Not a news flash at all.

So God's willing to change with the times huh?
It's only the church that's not.

 

[paul_valaru]

just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

unnatural lust, so far it seems that in the bible in those times gay lust was fairly natural. We know in rome it was, in ancient greece it was also a fact of life. and Jude also contradicts genesis 19 about why sodom was destroyed.


as for the food issue

to a jew of those times, and to a religious jew of this time

if it isn't kosher, it isn't food. it's trife, a non-food garbage, it would not be mentioned as food.

If you are gonna quote the bible, get some historical and social background on who you are quoting.

also look up different translations.

 

[Leslie]

Mark 7:1-23

[1]
Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,


[2] they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
[3] (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
[4] and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
[5] And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?"
[6] And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
[7] in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'
[8] You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men."
[9]
And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!


[10] For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother'; and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die';
[11] but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) --
[12] then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
[13] thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."
[14]
And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:


[15] there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."
[17] And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
[18] And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him,
[19] since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
[20] And he said, "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man.
[21] For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
[22] coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
[23] All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

There you go. The whole story in context. It is obviously food that is being mentioned.

I think you don't understand the story. Or are not able to get across what you think is happening in that story.

In your own words, what do you think is happening there?

 

[paul_valaru]

However, the Roman Catholic Church has remained the same since its own foundation by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago - never having conformed - a true rebel in todays society.

[cough]vatican I[/cough]

[COUGH COUGH]vatican II[/COUGH COUGH]

oh and the church was not founded till 200 years after the death of christ.

 

[Leslie]

well...her church.

Not all of them.

 

[paul_valaru]

oops The Roman Catholic Church was not founded till 200 years after the supposed death of christ.

 

[Leslie]

You better hurry up and pick a fight with me or people will be thinking you're posting for sex again.

 

[paul_valaru]

You better hurry up and pick a fight with me or people will be thinking you're posting for sex again.

steak is teh yummy

 

[Leslie]

theeeeeere ya go!

You're cut off!!
And cleaning the toilet!!!

[/not really]

 

[paul_valaru]

ok, enough of that, lol

seriously answer one question those of you with these religious beleifs.


1)if god is against gays, why do they exist?

2)if jesus is the omega, why am I Jewish?

If your answer to 1 is cause god or jesus gave us free will.

then

a) if is was god giving us free will, in the old testament he was pretty hands on, actually talking to us, appearing even, smiting whole cities, how come all those people who had gay relationships in the old testament where not smited. and yes there are a few insinces of gay relations, loving relationships, yet they got away with it, scott free.

b) Jesus gave us free will, how come there where gays before jesus showed up?

 

[Inkara1]

You better hurry up and pick a fight with me or people will be thinking you're posting for sex again.

That implies we don't think that now.

 

[A.B.Normal]

[edit] You all post too fast

 

[paul_valaru]

That implies we don't think that now.

yes cause I was a gun-toting right winger before I met her.