Is there a Bible/ New Testament expert in the house?

[ismael-robert]

No there is no science linking sexuality to genetics and no it is not a race...race is black, Hispanic, white, etc. Not sexual, heterosexual, mime, scientist or any other choice of life. I agree xmas and please don't read my statements and come to conclusions about my opinions on sexuals. I have a care and concern for them as well. I even have what one may call brotherly love. I desire them to repent from their CHOICE of lifestyle in order that they may discover God's best for them. I have no problem with being their friend or them coming to my church, etc. I also didn't intend to say that a Chrisitian SOLELY is one who takes the Bible as the Word of God, just another part of them...I agree with everything you said about being like Christ. But I don't understand your statement that we can learn to be like Christ by reading books that don't mention Him? That is a far assumption to say He read other books...He was an expert on the OT...as Son of God I can imagine He had it all memorized...probably from birth...as God He had really little need to read anything as God is all knowing...it's possible while here on earth in His humanity He didn't have access to omnipotence or it was limited to what His Father revealed to Him. It's naïve to think there's other works of God and that He didn't give us access to them. In order to be classified as scripture there can be no errors or contradictions. That is how we know whether something was inspired by God or not. We also have books that claim Lordship authorship for example they says "the Lord says"...other books have authors claiming they are eyewitness accounts...we have writers in the New Testament calling other NT writers' books scripture! finally we can look at historical evidence outside the Bible...early historians and the early church fathers quote from every book of the New Testament and no other...this was BEFORE the councils that supposively gave us the Bible...so the books that weren't included were because of massive errors. Again with thousands of historical manuscripts stretching from numerous distant regions and finding negligible differences shows us that the Bible has been translated with extreme accuracy. The idea that it is wrought with edits is false. Did you see my earlier post about how the later translation of Isaiah contained hardly any differences from the version dug up in Dead Sea Scrolls? And the differences did NOT distort the meaning or message.
The Bible can be used for anything but control. The New Testament gives authority to ALL believers. It calls them priests, saints, kings, etc. The New Testament destroyed the need for authority so again to make the assumption it could be used for control is false. Catholicism tried it and failed.
The Bible is a literal translation in that it is literature. So it contains symbolic language like anthropomorphisms, metaphors, etc so no we don't have to take it literally as in word for word.

Use M-A-P-S to guide you through Biblical reliability:
Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, Statistics
Have you tried to show someone the historical reliability of the Scriptures, and not known where to start? A quick trip to your
local well-stocked Christian bookstore likely will overwhelm you. Where among the dozens of impressive, comprehensive
reference books should you start?
Fortunately, while there is a wealth of information available to support the reliability of Scripture, you don’t have to burn, the
midnight oil to give a reasonable answer to those who ask, “How can we know the Bible is reliable?” Four basic principle chart
your way to understanding basic biblical reliability.
Remember the word MAPS and you will be able to chart
Bible reliability.
Manuscripts
Manuscripts relates to the tests used to determine the reliability of the extant manu script copies of the original do ents penned
by the Scripture writers (we do not possess these originals). In determining manuscript reliability, we deal with the question: How
can we test to see that the text we possess in the manuscript copies is an accurate rendition of the original? There are three main
manuscript tests: the Bibliographic, Eyewitness, and External (a second acronym — BEE — will help you remember these).
The bibliographic test considers the quan y of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, and also the time span between the
original do ents and our earliest copies. The more copies, the better able we are to work back to the original. The closer the
time span between the copies and the original, the less likely it is that serious text ual error would creep in. The Bible has stronger
bibliographic support than any classical literature — including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle.
We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approxi mately 10,000 from
the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of
1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the
original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with
the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest
quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C.
The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts
or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition
and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly
evident.
The eyewitness do ent test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the
authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the
events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the
Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he
chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament.
The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he
gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1 -3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples
“were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the
eyewitness credibility of its writers.
The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events,
geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no
historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical a ccuracy. The
Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven
time and again.
Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular hist orians who were almost
contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus
(around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100 -110) make direct
reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even
skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical do ent. Hence, it is clear that there is strong
external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.
Archaeology
Returning to our MAPS acronym, we have established ,the first principle, manuscript reliability. Let us consider our second
principle, archaeological evidence. Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical
interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible. It is telling when a secular scholar must revise his biblical criticism in light of
solid archaeological evidence.
For years critics dismissed the Book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in
Babylon during that time period. However, later archaeological research confirmed that the reigning monarch, Nabonidus,
appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent whi1e he was away from Babylon.
One of the most well-known New Testament examples concerns the Books of Luke and Acts. A bi blical skeptic, Sir William
Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament.
However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as — one after another — of the
historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. Archaeological evidence thus confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Prophecy
The third principle of Bible reliability is Prophecy, or predictive ability. The Bible records pred ictions of events that could not be
known or predicted by chance or common sense. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular
argument (by liberals) against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that the prophecies actually were written after the events
and that editors had merely dressed up the Bible text to look like they contained predictions made before the events. Nothing
could be further from the truth, however. The many predictions of Christ’s birth, life and death (see below) were indisputably
rendered more than a century before they occurred as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah and other prophetic books as well
as by the Septuagint translation, all dating from earlier than 100 B.C.
Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the
city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); its walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and its stones,
timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water (26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa.
23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42-43, 58; Isa. 13:20-21).
Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us
that prophecies regarding Him outnumber any others. Many of these prophecies would have been impossible for Jesus to
deliberately conspire to fulfill — such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19; Num. 24:21-24); His
birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12); the piercing of His hands and feet at the crucifixion
(Ps. 22:16); the soldiers’ gambling for His clothes (Ps. 22:18); the pie rcing of His side and the fact that His bones were not
broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9). Jesus also predicted His own death and
resurrection (John 2:19-22). Predictive Prophecy is a principle of Bible reliability that often reaches even the hard-boiled skeptic!
Statistics
Our fourth MAPS principle works well with predictive prophecy, because it is Statistically preposterous that any or all of the
Bible’s very specific, detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance, good guessing, or deliberate deceit. When
you look at some of the improbable prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, it seems incredible that skeptics — knowing the
authenticity and historicity of the texts — could reject the statistical verdict: the Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus Christ is the
Son of God, just as Scripture predicted many times and in many ways.
The Bible was written over a span of 1500 years by forty different human authors in three different languag es (Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek), on hundreds of subjects. And yet there is one consistent, noncontradictory theme that runs through it all: God’s
redemption of humankind. Clearly, Statistical probability is a powerful indicator of the trustworthiness of Sc ripture.
The next time someone denies the reliability of Scripture, just remember the acronym MAPS, and you will be equipped to give
an answer and a reason for the hope that lies within you (1 Pet. 3:15). Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, and Statistics not
only chart a secure course on the turnpikes of skepticism but also demonstrate definitively that the Bible is indeed divine rather
than human in origin.

[xmas1997]

Thanks, Ismael, you put a lot of work into your post and it is much appreciated.
Now, if everyone could do what you just did, maybe more would be willing to share, rather than ridicule. Somehow I think you and I are closer to agreement than the others, but I also want to explore where skull is coming from just as you do if he will share instead of be so critical and harsh.

Skull, you have a very unorthodox view of things that is very interesting, intriguing even, that I haven't heard in while. I had a friend who believed the way you do and I often wished I had had more time to pick his mind.
If you would please try to explain it a little more coherently and in more detail you might find a more receptive audience from everyone. Clearly you have some important things to say and explain, but you seem to be jumping around your points so much that you are hard to follow where you are going with things.
A little less ridicule would be nice too, my friend. I think you would find Blake to be more receptive too if he understood why you are saying some of the things you say.
None of us can assume we know what the other is trying to point out just because we think they should already be aware of something.
You have a lot to share, skull. Share it with us. And don't be concerned whether or not any of us agree.
Sometimes friendly disagreements are the best way for some to better understand. Ridicule won't aid that understanding process.

Blake, I also ask that you share your feelings about this too. You have made many awesome points as have skull and Ismael. If we can stay away from the ridicule we might all learn something or at the very least be pleasantly entertained. You do not have to believe what any of us say, rather just listen to their points and try not to judge them, then we can better understand your points. I have a feeling we are all in agreement in a general sense, but it is the particulars that are tripping us up. I have studied Zoroastrianism, is that where you are coming from?

Lee, if you want in this too, I am equally interested in your point of view as well. If I read you right, you tend to represent the atheistic view which is as welcome as the others IMHO. To be well rounded a person must look at all sides of an issue, and since my father was an agnostic I know full well of things such as a Universal Consciousness.

Fuzzy, you had a lot of great points you were making too. Where did you go? Come back.

If indeed there is a God, and I contend there is, it behooves us all to explore every side to every issue, but this cannot be done in a spirit of contention, ridicule, and ego contests of wills.
At least I don't think it can.

[Skull-1]

I jump around because Blake is doing that. When he gets his butt kicked in one area he jumps to some other topic, usually one I have already covered with him.... I also jump around because the scriptures do that.... They are not linear and one has to work hard to keep up. Took me years to reach this level of comprehension. It is not easy to follow. If it were then more than a few would find it....

[Leetonidas]

[xmas1997]

I jump around because Blake is doing that. When he gets his butt kicked in one area he jumps to some other topic, usually one I have already covered with him.... I also jump around because the scriptures do that.... They are not linear and one has to work hard to keep up. Took me years to reach this level of comprehension. It is not easy to follow. If it were then more than a few would find it....

I understand. We are dealing with a topic that is very complicated and causes hackles to rise especially when our knowledge is questioned. I can tell this is something that means a lot to you, but as Ismael said, you have a tendency to be a bit harsh when you are questioned, try to not do that if you can, ok? As they say (whoever "they" are ) you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
I think Blake would like to share too, but you kind of raised his hackles when you ridiculed him is what I sense.
Ismael definitely is interested as am I. I seriously doubt blake stayed in this discussion merely to refute you. And he did stay.
, even Lee seems somewhat intrigued and I think he leans toward an atheistic view.
That's ok, maybe if you start at the beginning, and please don't assume anything, that adds confusion.
Better to be wordy than vague. You will be questioned, but don't get frustrated, ok?
Ridicule just makes more ridicule and that is counterproductive, as you and I well know. We even have our own thread upstairs to testify to that, right?
I think Blake has some awesome points to make to this discussion. He raises some pertinent questions to be sure. And he knows about Zoroastrianism which I know of too, so there is a lot that can be shared by all. Ismael certainly has his together too, I appreciate the detail he is willing to share.
Would love to get some similar detail from you.
This is a subject I've studied all my life and is behind most of the music I write. I am not a Jesus freak, I am a seeker of the Truth, as are you, Ismael, fuzzy, Blake, and countless others are.
If we approach this subject with a bit of love (sounds corny) we might all of us have something to learn.
Why else are any of us doing this anyway?
, even Mouse might chime in with his brand of humor to keep things light.
All are welcome, right?

[xmas1997]

Skull, what can I say?
Why don't you start at the beginning if that is possible?
Then allow a few questions, a few constructive doubts, and go from there.
And heaven forbid, leave the ego at home, you won't be bashed by most of us for anything controversial.
And if that happens, ignore them.

[Skull-1]

Skull, what can I say?
Why don't you start at the beginning if that is possible?
Then allow a few questions, a few constructive doubts, and go from there.
And heaven forbid, leave the ego at home, you won't be bashed by most of us for anything controversial.
And if that happens, ignore them.

I will think about it. Seems a waste of time.

[Blake]

I understand. We are dealing with a topic that is very complicated and causes hackles to rise especially when our knowledge is questioned. I can tell this is something that means a lot to you, but as Ismael said, you have a tendency to be a bit harsh when you are questioned, try to not do that if you can, ok? As they say (whoever "they" are ) you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
I think Blake would like to share too, but you kind of raised his hackles when you ridiculed him is what I sense.
Ismael definitely is interested as am I. I seriously doubt blake stayed in this discussion merely to refute you. And he did stay.
, even Lee seems somewhat intrigued and I think he leans toward an atheistic view.
That's ok, maybe if you start at the beginning, and please don't assume anything, that adds confusion.
Better to be wordy than vague. You will be questioned, but don't get frustrated, ok?
Ridicule just makes more ridicule and that is counterproductive, as you and I well know. We even have our own thread upstairs to testify to that, right?
I think Blake has some awesome points to make to this discussion. He raises some pertinent questions to be sure. And he knows about Zoroastrianism which I know of too, so there is a lot that can be shared by all. Ismael certainly has his together too, I appreciate the detail he is willing to share.
Would love to get some similar detail from you.
This is a subject I've studied all my life and is behind most of the music I write. I am not a Jesus freak, I am a seeker of the Truth, as are you, Ismael, fuzzy, Blake, and countless others are.
If we approach this subject with a bit of love (sounds corny) we might all of us have something to learn.
Why else are any of us doing this anyway?
, even Mouse might chime in with his brand of humor to keep things light.
All are welcome, right?

[Blake]

I jump around because Blake is doing that. When he gets his butt kicked in one area he jumps to some other topic, usually one I have already covered with him.... I also jump around because the scriptures do that.... They are not linear and one has to work hard to keep up. Took me years to reach this level of comprehension. It is not easy to follow. If it were then more than a few would find it....

If it's that hard to comprehend and we're all going to Heaven any way, what's the point?

[Blake]

I always find it amusing that hardcore atheists can quote the bible just as well as hardcore Christians.

i find it more amusing that many hardcore Christians can't quote the Bible as well as hardcore atheists.

On second thought, it's quite sad.

[xmas1997]

i find it more amusing that many hardcore Christians can't quote the Bible as well as hardcore atheists.

On second thought, it's quite sad.

Blake, do you follow any particular faith or that you most identify with, or are you agnostic or what?

[Blake]

..... the term yam suph or “Red Sea” is used, it becomes very clear that it is correctly translated as “Red Sea” and is indeed referring to the large body of water commonly called the Red Sea or Gulf of Suez. The only way that one could look at these verses and believe they are speaking of some shallow lake or marshy area is if one has a preconceived bias towards that translation, ignoring not only the historical evidence but, more importantly, the scriptural context..........

lol preconceived bias

- A computer simulation has recreated what might be the parting of the Red Sea.- The simulation is not on the Red Sea, which runs the wrong direction for the wind described in the Bible.- A large lake in northern Egypt, on the edge of the Mediterranean could match the biblical "Sea of Reeds," or Red Sea.

To drive away the waters and part the Red Sea, Moses needed a different location than previously thought, according to a new study on the miraculous biblical event.Previous studies of wind, waves and bathymetry have called on hurricane strength winds blowing from the northwest to push away the water. This exposed a long reef which allowed Moses and the Israelites to escape the advancing cavalry of Pharaoh.

The problem is: It would be nearly impossible for Israelites to stand in such a wind, much less walk to safety.What's more, the Book of Exodus includes some nice meteorological details: "(T)he Lord drove the sea away all night with a strong east wind and turned the sea-bed into dry land."

"If you are going to match the biblical account, you need the wind from the east," said researcher Carl Drews of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Drews has been studying the Red Sea story for years as a student and now has published a paper on the matter, which was his master's thesis, in the journal*PloS One............

http://news.discovery.com/history/re...ea-parting.htm

[Blake]

Blake, do you follow any particular faith or that you most identify with, or are you agnostic or what?

If you're gonna label me something, I guess the closest thing would be agnostic.

[xmas1997]

If you're gonna label me something, I guess the closest thing would be agnostic.

Well, I didn't mean to insult you with a label, just wanted to know where you are coming from.
I don't care much for labels either. But like I said, when stuck between a hard place and a rock, I call myself a cafeteria Catholic which to my mind is Christian.
My father is agnostic.
You pose some great questions and now I see it is from a general agnostic point of view. My father does the same.
Yet we allow each other to disagree as long as neither of us push our beliefs on the other. In fact we find lots of humor whenever we discuss God or as he calls it, the Universal Consciousness.
Having been raised as a Catholic for the most part, I see nothing wrong with picking and choosing the parts I agree with and don't agree with inside the faith.
My beliefs are that I am still Christian at my foundation, although some of the many things I believe do not strictly follow Christian tenets. I am referring to my metaphysical leanings which are a bit more esoteric than the average drugstore Christian can usually handle. But then I do not dictate what they should believe and I expect the same consideration.
The dogmatic, fanatical self righteous Christians (whom I call Jesus freaks) are the ones I have a hard time tolerating.
Anyway hopefully we can have some decent sharing of opinions now without all the ridicule. Keeping my fingers crossed on that one because some people just love to ridicule, that's their nature to be disrespectful.
Humor is greatly welcomed though. Without that I would not be here. Blah blah blah

[Blake]

Having been raised as a Catholic for the most part, I see nothing wrong with picking and choosing the parts I agree with and don't agree with inside the faith.

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

What do you think "the law" means? No trick question, just honest answer.

[xmas1997]

What do you think "the law" means? No trick question, just honest answer.

Back then there was a need to have a common ground in order to govern the early Jews which in essence were a theist government even though they had kings. They needed order and they needed rules to explain this order. IMHO they went overboard with this to the point of nitpicking everything. One could easily say they were quite anal.
An example is forbidding the consumption of pork. Back then it would have made sense because it was riddled with worms, disease, etc., but today it does not because pork is highly regulated. It could just as easily been cattle like it is in India, but I digress, and cows in India are revered rather than eaten.
Keep in mind this is the simplistic view of the law.
There is a deeper significance. And that has to do with Gods Law.
To explain that takes a bit of time and a suspension of your basic beliefs, as well as a suspension of reality that only now in this day and age of scientific discoveries, atomic theory and all, are we just barely beginning to understand especially if you do not have faith in God in the first place. I do not know if I can explain it without you thinking I am completely loony.
So if I may, let's just leave it at the simplistic view.
Or if someone else wants to weigh in here you are welcome to do so.

[Blake]

Back then there was a need to have a common ground in order to govern the early Jews which in essence were a theist government even though they had kings. They needed order and they needed rules to explain this order. IMHO they went overboard with this to the point of nitpicking everything. One could easily say they were quite anal.
An example is forbidding the consumption of pork. Back then it would have made sense because it was riddled with worms, disease, etc., but today it does not because pork is highly regulated. It could just as easily been cattle like it is in India, but I digress, and cows in India are revered rather than eaten.
Keep in mind this is the simplistic view of the law.
There is a deeper significance. And that has to do with Gods Law.
To explain that takes a bit of time and a suspension of your basic beliefs, as well as a suspension of reality that only now in this day and age of scientific discoveries, atomic theory and all, are we just barely beginning to understand especially if you do not have faith in God in the first place. I do not know if I can explain it without you thinking I am completely loony.
So if I may, let's just leave it at the simplistic view.
Or if someone else wants to weigh in here you are welcome to do so.

This is beyond just being a bit anal:

Leviticus 20:13

King James Version (KJV)13*If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If God is the same today as he's always been, then he wants to kill the gay today.

[ismael-robert]

Its also sad atheist spend so much time debunking a myth and are so angry. Jesus said the law wouldn't pass till all fulfilled. It was fufilled on cross. God doesn't want to kill gays He wants them to repent and be holy to be in His presence but people choose their desires over His soHe gives them what They ask for on jjudgement day.

[ismael-robert]

If God wants to create a stray wind He can lol

[Mr. Slave]

Its also sad atheist spend so much time debunking a myth and are so angry. Jesus said the law wouldn't pass till all fulfilled. It was fufilled on cross. God doesn't want to kill gays He wants them to repent and be holy to be in His presence but people choose their desires over His soHe gives them what They ask for on jjudgement day.

Jeezus Chryyst!!!

[ismael-robert]

If u ask me theres lil point in researching other books or faiths cause Judiaism is the oldest and original. The faith God created and intended us to follow until His Son arrived as Judiaism predicted. God wouldn't contadict Himself with other faiths or make the one He established look incorrect. Those are the works of Satan to deceive us from His truth.

[mouse]

topics like these make me feel even better supporting Alternative Design.

[Skull-1]

What do you think "the law" means? No trick question, just honest answer.

That is a VERY deep and fair question with an equally deep answer.

The Reader's Digest version is: If "all of the law and the prophets prophesied until John" and the prophecy is about Christ... Then the fulfilment of those prophecies is Him. Also remember that He said, "All will be judged on the day of judgment by the words I have spoken" not the words the (fictional/composite) Moses spoke.

God spoke through many ways it said in Hebrews 1 but now speaks through His Son. The law Christ is fulfilling is not the Law of Moses for certain because He overturned that stuff. But again, people continue to abide by it with their covenant breaking and false gospel stupidity ( hing, church on "the Sabbath", remarriage, etc.).

Divorce and remarriage is the most visible of these things. Anyone who is hard of heart is not under or in Christ. They are under sin and death, the Law of Moses....the flesh. It is really simple once you see it. But almost no one does.

[Skull-1]

Its also sad atheist spend so much time debunking a myth and are so angry. Jesus said the law wouldn't pass till all fulfilled. It was fufilled on cross. God doesn't want to kill gays He wants them to repent and be holy to be in His presence but people choose their desires over His soHe gives them what They ask for on jjudgement day.

God gets what He wants... The potter makes the clay... Stop worrying about gays and get the heterosexuals to repent from their adulterous remarriages. That's far more pressing and a bigger offense to God. Not covenant keeping (asunthetos--another word absolutely abused by evil bible translators) comes before sexuality on the list of issues (1 Cor 6:9).


Leave sexuals alone. They're not stealing the wives of other men or husbands of other women.

Fix the adultery in the church. That's what Jesus meant about the log and the mote in the eye.... And He spoke about adultery quite a lot. sexuality....not so much.

[xmas1997]

God gets what He wants... The potter makes the clay... Stop worrying about gays and get the heterosexuals to repent from their adulterous remarriages. That's far more pressing and a bigger offense to God. Not covenant keeping (asunthetos--another word absolutely abused by evil bible translators) comes before sexuality on the list of issues (1 Cor 6:9).


Leave sexuals alone. They're not stealing the wives of other men or husbands of other women.

Fix the adultery in the church. That's what Jesus meant about the log and the mote in the eye.... And He spoke about adultery quite a lot. sexuality....not so much.

I have this feeling that you and I believe roughly the same things, and that they are metaphysical in essence.
We have differences, sure, such as you prefer to use scripture for your examples.
Whereas I do not like using them in that manner because others throughout the ages have used them perversely to justify their personal agendas.
I prefer to use modern-day examples to show my contentions and proofs.
I could be wrong. If so, let me know.
In any case, as long as we agree to be able to disagree, then we can respect each other's beliefs.