Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[eider]

The NT is not the inspired Word of God, then?

Time to turn this around.
Are you saying that Jesus did not fulfill ALL of his mission and teaching during and before his resurrection?

 

[eider]

Sugary, or Salty?

 

[glassjester]

Time to turn this around.
Are you saying that Jesus did not fulfill ALL of his mission and teaching during and before his resurrection?

Of course He fulfilled His mission. And He taught all that He intended to teach. But we also know that not all of His words and actions are recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25). And we know that the Apostles continued to teach and preach after the Ascension. The Apostles - including, later, Paul.

But rather than "turning this around," let's settle on a clear answer to my previous question. Are Paul's writings in the NT the inspired Word of God or not?

 

[Lon]

Look up 'special pleading'. This is what you're doing, right there

Must be part of the liberal movement, that you get to make up your own definitions and terms :think:

And you don't......... all you mostly quote is Paul..... amazing.

Have you actually READ the NT? It is mostly Paul. Didn't know if you knew that lain:

Well then.... please write some.

"If you want to be 'like' Jesus, spend more time 'with' Jesus." 2 Timothy 2:15 Revelation 3:20
Be a reader. Be a pray-er.

And yet more....... and you chuck your faith about like an angry gardener whirling a spade, Lon.

See Luke 9:54 Mark 3:17 John 2:17 then John 13:23 Proverbs 27:17

Look, mate, if I was to point to one of the most loving, genuine, faithful, devoted, trustworthy, honest and decent groups of people around where I live, it would be the JWs, and they have never ever shouted at folks like you do. They do not support SSM either, but they don't talk to folks like you do.

Again John 2:17;13:23 I'm not really sure you can compare what is written with what someone says, however. Some things are worth 'hollerin' about.

What is a church? Let's discover what on earth you think you're talking about.
I can't wait to discover what 'my church' is.

Is this really that big of a deal? I had thought you'd mentioned being with a liberal Scottish church. That's it, nothing more to see here. Did you mention it in passing? The main point was that even a church going this direction, is no longer a 'christian' church. That was the point.

That's it. It's official. You're level of comprehension is zilch.

Nope. You don't communicate well and are worried about your academic prowess. I'm comfortable in mine :think:
I am fairly certain of my own prowess... you try to correct people a little more than I think warrants or that you should.
It is nice to be cocky and self-assured (I am as arrogant as the next guy), but I try to keep it out of the way (including here).
I realize I too, talk down to people, but here, it isn't about my or your academic prowess or lack thereof, but rather about spirituality and good standing in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I reported that the Scottish Episcopal Church has voted to support SSM. I read that news on BBC teletext. Do you now believe that the directors of the BBC are all members of the SEC?

YOU brought it up. "Your" church, thus.

 

[ok doser]

... let's settle on a clear answer to my previous question. Are Paul's writings in the NT the inspired Word of God or not?

ever notice how difficult it is to get a straight answer out of these twisted posters?

 

[Lon]

You already read what I wrote before.... :- Imo, Paul could only have been an examplar of the Christian life and Faith, so the suggestion that Paul 'teaches-initiates' is massively worrying for me.

And yet, he said to follow him. I am MORE worried that you eschew anything in scriptures as if Paul wasn't part and the heart of Christ. Such, imho, is more dangerous because you become a bible corrector instead of a bible believer. Because I am Covenant, all that Paul expressed, is from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This leans towards the religious-debates section now. If Jesus had full control of his life and mission, I find it difficult to reason that he forgot to mention anything of importance himself. And you use the words 'teach' and 'taught' as if Paul was/is the Meshiah himself. This is surely what theologians describe as 'Pauline Faith' or 'Pauline Christianity'. I believe in Yeshua BarYosef, his life and mission.

False dichotomy as well as a rejection of the authenticity of Christ, in the Pauline epistles. Yes, we'd be very far apart, and necessarily so. Once anyone starts rejecting Paul, they are rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ as well.

What this probably means is that my beliefs are far apart from your faith.

Yes, necessarily.

To try and show you how far apart, I would guess that if a Jehovah's Witness stood a yard from your faith, I might be standing 50 yards off. But since I have Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christian-Spiritualists, JWs, Jews, all-manner-of-pagans and masses of others as friends, I don't think that I need be outright enemies with a Catholic.

None but Christianity is Christian. Once any one of them rejects any scripture, such is no longer following Christ.

 

[glassjester]

ever notice how difficult it is to get a straight answer out of these twisted posters?

It's something I find very difficult to understand.
Why wouldn't one want to take the opportunity to explain what they believe?

 

[glassjester]

But since I have Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christian-Spiritualists, JWs, Jews, all-manner-of-pagans and masses of others as friends, I don't think that I need be outright enemies with a Catholic.

That is good to hear, by the way!

 

[kiwimacahau]

what were the last five words Jesus spoke to the woman taken in adultery?

THE PERICOPAE ADULTERAE:

JOHN 7:53 – 8:11​

Taylor E. Terzek​

—​

INTRODUCTION​

The Pericopae Adulterae has been an item of extensive study and analysis among modern New Testament scholars. Surrounded by conspiracy and vast amounts of research, the story is gaining attention beyond the scholastic community. The Pericopae Adulterae centers its dispute on the passage of the woman brought before Jesus who was guilty of adultery, found in John 7:53-8:11. In short, the passage appears to be an interpolation, which challenges the historicity and relevance of the canonized passage. Analysis of this claim will be viewed by addressing the history of the manuscript evidence, as well as any mention by the church fathers in reference to the woman caught in adultery.

MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE​

Several venerated scholars have compiled manuscript data, and the consensus is clear: the Pericopae Adulterae is not found in the early major manuscripts of John. “There can be no question that the story is not found in many of the very oldest documents.”[1] Hodges recognizes that the eldest manuscript data creates the greatest acceptance of validity, and his use of “many,” as opposed to “all early manuscripts” or “every early manuscript,” would most certainly be contested by the general view of modern scholars. Willker’s emphasis does not pull any punches in referencing the true condition of the early evidences: “The earliest external evidence shows no knowledge of the pericope in John.”[2] Falconer agrees, “It is omitted by the oldest representatives of every kind of evidence (manuscripts, versions, fathers).”[3] Bruce M. Metzger collectively shows the Greek manuscript evidence against the pericope:

It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66,67K B L N T W X Y D Θ Ψ 053 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 565 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text.[4]
​

Source: https://taylorterzek.wordpress.com/research-projects/john-753-811/

 

[MrDante]

I have socialized with homosexual people. I even lived with one for about a year. I certainly do not hate them.

your posts paint a very different story

 

[Lon]

your posts paint a very different story

No it doesn't! :doh: I live around alcoholics. "Loving" them isn't saying 'have another drink!'" :doh:

I've watched alcoholics die around me. I take every opportunity to tell them to knock it off! That isn't hate.

Talking about their bad habits, as if I don't like those habits, is NOT hate. Yelling at them for what they are doing to themselves, friends, and family is NOT hate! You people will never learn....

 

[glassjester]

your posts paint a very different story

Maybe your interpretation of my posts paints a very different picture.

 

[Lon]

...without actuially looking the words up..... 'sin no more..?'

But sin is/was just a breach of the laws, and although some of the punishments were extreme, the need to keep the laws was crucial to the survival of the Israelites. Today that has somehow turned into some satanic evil, worthy of the fires of damnation..blah blah.

I mean, shoplifting is a sin, but if Mrs Wenlock is to be thrown down into the blazing flames for nicking a lipstick from Walmart (or wherever), or looking twice at that actor bloke (Tom Hardy?) then all the ladies 'round here are in trouble, and not for that lipstick...!

Jesus was more likely to condemn a person for calling someone a fool, than that woman....

Your values, not mine. Theft is more a problem of the heart than 'what' is taken. Taking from anybody is putting self above others and against the 2nd Law our Lord Jesus Christ gave. You accused me of being more 'Paul' than Jesus (false dichotomy). Never-the-less, the two commands of our Lord Jesus Christ are in my sig and life application. I hate sin. Love people. Even you (not by last on any order). Wanting people to know and follow the Lord Jesus Christ, as Designer/Owner of us, is the highest love. There is nothing higher. -Lon

 

[dodge]

STOP PRESS!
The Scottish Episcopal Church has voted to support and carry out Gay marriage services.

Another Church has seen the light.

No another church has walked away from God right into darkness and lies,sadly.

 

[MrDante]

No it doesn't! :doh: I live around alcoholics. "Loving" them isn't saying 'have another drink!'" :doh:

Orientation isn't an addiction and it is quite hateful to suggest that it is

 

[MrDante]

Maybe your interpretation of my posts paints a very different picture.

If you were posting the same things about blacks or Jews or the handicapped or anyone really, it would be called hate.

 

[glassjester]

[HIGHLIGHT]If you were[/HIGHLIGHT] posting the same things about blacks or Jews or the handicapped or anyone really, it would be called hate.

But I'm not.

 

[MrDante]

But I'm not.

Your posts don't magically change into something wonderful and loving just because you change who you are talking about.

 

[ok doser]

Orientation isn't an addiction and it is quite hateful to suggest that it is

let's be clear what you're talking about when you use the term "orientation" in this manner

you're talking about people claiming that their inherent sexual orientation is toward members of their own sex, which is a perversion, same as those who claim to be "oriented" toward animals, or children


and it's not hateful to be against perversion

 

[ok doser]

and so, we have i-durrrr, who rejects the parts of the NT that he disagrees with, especially anything by Paul that he disagrees with :dizzy:

and we got kiwimachoo, who, challenged on his nonsense:

.... God, in Christ, accepts us as we are where we are.

replies by discarding the whole "woman taken in adultery" tale :doh:



and of course, these retards get props from the rest of the retard brigade