i am for phil

[jimbuick]

So, this is how this conversation has turned? Personal jabs and spell check?

 

[tyga tyga]

So, this is how this conversation has turned? Personal jabs and spell check?

Does this upset you? You're infamous for doing this ^^ Instigating at its finest. My correction wasn't meant to disrespect wicked, did it for me. Just like his question, was of no offense to me.

 

[Rodja]

As to Rodja's comment, I think we are on the cusp of finding ourselves in a society that is/will become hostile towards those that believe the Bible. Most have no idea where the concept of freedom of religion came from, nor do they understand that "freedom of" and "freedom from" are not the same.

Some of that has happened, for instance in Canada - in which certain Biblical concepts may not be openly preached (in the church) because they are considered hate crimes.

OK, I probably was stupid to take this up on this forum, but I do some stupid things every day.

I do not wish to convert anyone on this forum, nor do I wish to "punish" anyone who does not share my views.

Nonetheless, I feel a certain upset when people mis-interpret Biblical text, and not out of ignorance of that text, but with the intention of helping others draw an erroneous conclusion. My experience is that most who do so, have never regularly read the Bible, but somehow feel free to conclude what it says and means. If I flip open a few pages of a Chilton Auto Repair manual and read a few words, that alone does not make me qualified to diagnose engine problems.

Lastly, as to the issue that Phil spoke about, every major religion in the world holds this same view on this same issue. For that reason, I do not understand the relevance of comparing Christianity vs other religious beliefs. Every religion denounces the behavior Phil spoke about. And note, Phil spoke as an individual, not as a theologian. Incidentally, some religions are FAR more drastic in their views on that behavior than Christianity.

No more from me on this thread.

I disagree with you position. It has nothing to do with those who believe in any sort of religious text; it has to do with those that justify their actions based upon a religious text especially considering all of the murders and heinous acts that have been carried out using God as their sole reasoning. We've finally hit a point in our society were someone can freely go against the grain without fearing the repercussions.

Like I said, being religious is fine, but using it in any form as rationalization for bigotry is unacceptable.

 

[napalm]

Purple...

 

[tyga tyga]

Red+blue?

 

[napalm]

Red+blue?

No, that's my go to derail when people take things a little too seriously.

C'mon guys, everyone one knows political and religion threads always end badly...

 

[wicked442]

No, that's my go to derail when people take things a little too seriously. C'mon guys, everyone one knows political and religion threads always end badly...

And so does Eye Candy

 

[Danb2285]

What I dont understand is why only Phil's comments about being homosexual are the ones being pointed out. He pointed out that greed and sleeping around from person to person were a sin as well, but no ones got a problem with that all the attention goes to his gay comments. Did his comments directly effect the gay community somehow? Do I think it was right he got fired? No. Do I think his rights were violated? No. This is an argument that I honestly believe will never be settled because each side only wants to understand their own beliefs and point the finger at the other side saying "you're wrong for not believing what I do" the gay community wants their right to be gay to be recognized as much as the anti gay community wants their right to be anti gay accepted. Its a never ending cycle. I did think Phil's response to all this was somewhat humorous

"Last time I checked Chick-fa-la was still making chicken sandwiches."

 

[thebigt]

We are getting off topic and I dont reeally want to get into a religious debate. From my experience it is always a dead end

Instead lets get back on topic and try this

Why shouldn't he have gotten suspended?

Why shouldn't there be a public response to his beliefs?

The foundation of his defense lies on those two beliefs. Please explain why you think he shouldnt have gotten suspended and why you think the public should ignore what he said.

reasons he shouldn't have gotten suspended:
1. they knew what his beliefs were and hired him anyways, his beliefs have not changed.
2. duck dynasty is the number 1 rated show of all time on that network.
3. the network owns the rights to duck dynasty merchandise, in total duck dynasty has made the network over $400 million....if the robertsons were to let their fans know that AandE is making the bulk of profit from duck dynasty merchandise then the same people who are going to boycott the network would probably stop buying the merchandise, a huge loss for the network.
4. last but not least, it is totally bogus for AandE to announce that phil has been suspended...when 9 out of 10 episodes of the upcoming season have already been made and include phil in them.

 

[Touey]

""You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them. But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it."

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Such confidence we have through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

You want to know who God is then read what Christ had to say. He is the New Covenant - the Old (covenant) Testament is no longer valid. So do not reference it.

Homosexuality, adultery, murder, stealing, envy, gluteny are all sin and seperate us from God. Christ offers all of us sinners reconcilliation with God.

When people who don't know the bible use the bible to invalidate the bible it is quite silly.

Sadly most have no idea of what faith is because it is counter-intellectual and counter-logical/reasonable and therefore they reject it. Sadly far too many very intelligent people are victims of themselves. They have great intellectual capacity to define and metaphore what a paradox principle is yet are completely and hopelessly powerless to live by it.

Inserting religion and mythology into a faith discussion is foolish. Discussing faith with someone who has no idea what faith is or how to practice it is equally foolish.

"Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise."

I have absolutely the same proof you do. None. But "the substance of things hoped for by the evidence of the unseen" have been abundant in my life. "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." It does not say mind, logic, reason or any other faculty. All of those faculties contradict time after time after time. I cannot find Him on my terms.


My God is a creator and nurturer - He created me perfectly and nurtures esteem just as your father should. Do you have a son or daughter whom your brought into the world whom you tell "you are my second or third most greatest". No. That would be counter instinctive and counter productive.


Blaming sin for the absence of a God is naive.

As far as alien life - my faith and knowledge of my God does not cause me to become ignorant nor do I dismiss that there may very well be other life in this vast universe that God created. Alien by definition means foreign. It does not mean that my same creator did not also create them and nurture them just as he has me.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known."---All posts made by David Dunn


If I may say few word on my own my friends God love Josh and others in here so we play the background and may be those do not see become blessed. Here is one Lecrae I think much in fitting for we shall always try to help with His help let us help truly

[video=youtube;LHnZRZiCYHE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHnZRZiCYHE[/video]

 

[thebigt]

reasons he shouldn't have gotten suspended:
1. they knew what his beliefs were and hired him anyways, his beliefs have not changed.
2. duck dynasty is the number 1 rated show of all time on that network.
3. the network owns the rights to duck dynasty merchandise, in total duck dynasty has made the network over $400 million....if the robertsons were to let their fans know that AandE is making the bulk of profit from duck dynasty merchandise then the same people who are going to boycott the network would probably stop buying the merchandise, a huge loss for the network.
4. last but not least, it is totally bogus for AandE to announce that phil has been suspended...when 9 out of 10 episodes of the upcoming season have already been made and include phil in them.

in effect AandE is making a fortune off the robertsons while at the same time claiming to be outraged by them...

 

[lukehayd]

Dang Touey, I thought you had lost your accent till I saw that most of your post was by DD and then saw that your accent was still there! Lol!

 

[JD261985]

Hold on no SERM in pct? OMG next!!!!!!!!! Wait...wut?

 

[kisaj]

I think the guy is a moron and anyone that believes crap like he does is too. But, he was within his right and no matter how dumb it makes him look, A+E knew exactly what they were getting so it is a bit hypocritical. I mean, we were raised Catholic and it wasn't until I learned the way religion views other's beliefs and how intolerant it is, that I realized what a crock of **** religion is. It's embarrassing to see what it can make otherwise intelligent people do and think.

 

[CincyKiller45]

No part of the Bible speaks of homosexuality as we know it today. I am a Christian and I believe the most important part of being a Christian is to learn of the circumstances the authors were facing when the books were composed. It was written in a specific time in history and under unique circumstances. The Bible in no way, shape, or form speaks of homosexuality as it pertains to today. In that time it was common practice for fathers to sodomize their youngest boy, then that boy did the same to his youngest son. Absolutely repulsive for todays standards. The word homosexuality did not even exist during that time. Paul, in Romans, was upset because Christians were using the temples as orgies, not because of the type of orgies that were occurring. It's not present in the Ten Commandments. Jesus never spoke of it. If it were such a terrible sin, don't you think the Son of Man, Jesus Christ himself would speak of it? The last time I read the four canonical Gospels, I'm pretty sure Jesus spoke of other sins. Not to mention it isn't present in the other non-canonical, "Gnostic", gospels.

Main point: You have to read the scripture in the context of which it was written. The Bible is much more clandestine than most people realize.

I cannot comprehend how a man could not love a woman, but thats how they were born. I find it very hypocritical that some Christians can condemn these people to hell and still look in the mirror everyday as if they're any better.

Phil also had the right to speak his opinion without being chastised. Though the foundation of which differs from mine.

Longest post of my career, I feel better now.

 

[tyga tyga]

No part of the Bible speaks of homosexuality as we know it today. I am a Christian and I believe the most important part of being a Christian is to learn of the circumstances the authors were facing when the books were composed. It was written in a specific time in history and under unique circumstances. The Bible in no way, shape, or form speaks of homosexuality as it pertains to today. In that time it was common practice for fathers to sodomize their youngest boy, then that boy did the same to his youngest son. Absolutely repulsive for todays standards. The word homosexuality did not even exist during that time. Paul, in Romans, was upset because Christians were using the temples as orgies, not because of the type of orgies that were occurring. It's not present in the Ten Commandments. Jesus never spoke of it. If it were such a terrible sin, don't you think the Son of Man, Jesus Christ himself would speak of it? The last time I read the four canonical Gospels, I'm pretty sure Jesus spoke of other sins. Not to mention it isn't present in the other non-canonical, "Gnostic", gospels. Main point: You have to read the scripture in the context of which it was written. The Bible is much more clandestine than most people realize. I cannot comprehend how a man could not love a woman, but thats how they were born. I find it very hypocritical that some Christians can condemn these people to hell and still look in the mirror everyday as if they're any better. Phil also had the right to speak his opinion without being chastised. Though the foundation of which differs from mine. Longest post of my career, I feel better now.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality:

"What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you." (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)

Then we can talk about what Paul wrote,

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)

Edit: I'm bowing out of this thread. Have a great holiday guys!

 

[CincyKiller45]

I have a rebuttal, but as noted before, I'm not looking to spark a debate. I don't believe you are either, judging from your post edit.

I believe this passage in Micah sums up my learnings from the Hebrew Scriptures best: "He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does The Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love with kindness, and to walk humbly with your God" (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Micah. 6:8 )?

 

[n87]

...In that time it was common practice for fathers to sodomize their youngest boy, then that boy did the same to his youngest son...

And you know that how? Or just pulled it out of your a$$? You never hear about it in islam or Judaism. They may have done it to their slaves or captured enemies, but not to their sons. Raping someone would be to show your utmost disrespect for the victim. That happens even now days in wars and conflicts...

 

[fightbackhxc]

The vast majority of public figure jobs have clauses such as this. Hell a majority of the jobs I have had they had it. But even if it wasnt in the contract then this is still not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech protects you from legal prosecution. He faces no legal ramifications for what he said so there is no freedom of speech violation. People are confusing freedom of speech with the freedom to say whatever you want without ramifications for what was said from their peers or employers.
If his contract did not have a clause for it then it is a legal issue not a freedom issue. Yes he has the freedom to say or believe whatever he wants but is not free from the consequences to what is said. He is only protected from government prosecuation and until he is thrown in jail for his beliefs then there is no freedom of speech violation.

Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away until all is accomplished. That's what it is says in Mathew. The law isn't 10 commandments, it is 613. The law which says homosexuality is a sin calls for them to be killed for that sin and, with due respect, it calls for this guy to die because the products he is wearing on his show are made of mixed fibre.

Its always fun watching people cherry pick scriptures

You are taking Mosaic law out of context and Yes this would apply to a crowd of Jewish people however Jesus came to abolish Mosaic law. Does that mean homosexuality is OK? No because it is mentioned again post Mosaic law in the old testament. I love how people misinterpret the Bible. It's No longer a sin if I eat shellfish etc.

Look at Peters vision of the feast in acts.

 

[AE14]

Old Testament. New Testament still condones homosexuality, when Christ was born, Old Testament fell to "the wayside" if you would. So, the mixed fibre deal.. Void. We eat shellfish, and things that crawl on the ground (snake, alligator..etcetera). We lust, but do we pull our eyes out or cut off our hand? No, we would remove ourself from the situation or block porn sites on the internet instead..

Again, sin has no hierarchy sin is sin.

... Sorry for the rant...

Had to get involved a little here. It didn't fall at all. In fact if you believe the story of Jesus he was an OT scholar and teacher. Couldn't have fallen.

Damn, my neighbor didn't keep the Sabbath, anyone got any extra stones?

 

[fightbackhxc]

No part of the Bible speaks of homosexuality as we know it today. I am a Christian and I believe the most important part of being a Christian is to learn of the circumstances the authors were facing when the books were composed. It was written in a specific time in history and under unique circumstances. The Bible in no way, shape, or form speaks of homosexuality as it pertains to today. In that time it was common practice for fathers to sodomize their youngest boy, then that boy did the same to his youngest son. Absolutely repulsive for todays standards. The word homosexuality did not even exist during that time. Paul, in Romans, was upset because Christians were using the temples as orgies, not because of the type of orgies that were occurring. It's not present in the Ten Commandments. Jesus never spoke of it. If it were such a terrible sin, don't you think the Son of Man, Jesus Christ himself would speak of it? The last time I read the four canonical Gospels, I'm pretty sure Jesus spoke of other sins. Not to mention it isn't present in the other non-canonical, "Gnostic", gospels.

Main point: You have to read the scripture in the context of which it was written. The Bible is much more clandestine than most people realize.

I cannot comprehend how a man could not love a woman, but thats how they were born. I find it very hypocritical that some Christians can condemn these people to hell and still look in the mirror everyday as if they're any better.

Phil also had the right to speak his opinion without being chastised. Though the foundation of which differs from mine.

Longest post of my career, I feel better now.

Homosexuality is a sin, just like my sin of lust. You can't deny it. Luckily Jesus came to save us and intercede for us between us and God. The issues that needs yo be addressed is judgement and how we rebuke others. My sin is No different than the sin of homosexuality...both ultimately send Jesus to the cross. You are relying on your fallible interpretations of the Bible to promote want you want when Timothy clearly says all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching and instructing. If the Bible doesn't hold absolute truth then we may as well just dismiss it all together.

 

[Beau]

I promised to stay out.

Thank you, fightback and tyga, for your replies.

I should have never promised to stay out.

There is so much misinformation propogated.

Both OT and NT adress this specific issue, in detail.

The relationship between the OT and the NT is clear as well, for anyone who has studied.

The biblical position is clear. One needs only to look at the original terms used in the native language.

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

about time someone had the balls to speak out against all the pc crap!!! GO PHIL

AMEN!!!

 

[fightbackhxc]

I promised to stay out.

Thank you, fightback and tyga, for your replies.

I should have never promised to stay out.

There is so much misinformation propogated. Both OT and NT adress this specific issue, in detail.

The relationship between the OT and the NT is clear as well, for anyone who has studied.

The biblical position is clear. One needs only to look at the original terms used in the native language.

Romans 1 clearly calls out relations between same genders.

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

Sigh... the irrationally never ceases to amaze me A private company suspended an employee for expressing an opinion which that company felt represented them in a negative light. More than likely the guy signed a contract with A&E which had a clause that says he’s a representative of A&E and is expected to act accordingly. He violates the clause and A&E has a right to suspend him. What is really mind boggling is how people are making this a freedom of speech issue. A&E was justifiable in their actions and he really has no defense against them.

Your right, its not a freedom of speech issue; but it is border line freedom of religion issue. If my employer heard that I went to a evangelical church and heard me say something that was not politically correct, can he fire me?

In that case maybe a Christian boss can fire a Jewish Muslim employee for saying something bad about Jesus?

Also, it iis a capitalist issue. If the viewers, who are mostly not gays, stop watching, ratings go down and sponsors no longer want to advertise becuz of no viewership, than it would behoove them to put him back.

Also, funny how its ok to fire Phil but a Christian baker is forced to bake cakes for gays?

 

[keithgeiling]

JudoJosh is exactly right in this. He couldn't have explained it any clearer!!!

 

[Beau]

Romans 1 clearly calls out relations between same genders.

Agreed.

You would have to try, as many do, to claim this is not directly and specifically addressed.

If people want to reject the validity of the Bible, they can.

If people want to disagree with what the Bible says, they can.

If people want to believe there is no God, or that there are many gods, they can.

But to claim the Bible does not specifically address this issue is both innacurate and misleading.

 

[CincyKiller45]

But to claim the Bible does not specifically address this issue is both innacurate and misleading.

With respect:

No one claimed that there isn't a few books/letters in the Bible that speak of this in some sense. Context, and when you look at it again, remember context.

You cannot read the Bible in black-and-white. If I were to have that view than I would believe slavery is a "natural condition". Because St. Paul said in the New Testament, "slaves be obedient to your masters".

I am not claiming the Bible does condone slavery, but the act of picking specific phrases to prove that homosexuality is wrong can also be used to argue that slavery is right.

To focus on certain phrases, ignoring the meta-themes of justice, forgiveness and love in the Bible is just an example of not seeing the forest for the trees and in my opinion a perversion of the original message.

Last post here. Happy holidays fellow meatheads.

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

With respect: No one claimed that there isn't a few books/letters in the Bible that speak of this in some sense. Context, and when you look at it again, remember context. You cannot read the Bible in black-and-white. If I were to have that view than I would believe slavery is a "natural condition". Because St. Paul said in the New Testament, "slaves be obedient to your masters". I am not claiming the Bible does condone slavery, but the act of picking specific phrases to prove that homosexuality is wrong can also be used to argue that slavery is right. To focus on certain phrases, ignoring the meta-themes of justice, forgiveness and love in the Bible is just an example of not seeing the forest for the trees and in my opinion a perversion of the original message. Last post here. Happy holidays fellow meatheads.

I dont think anyone has to pick and chose verses out of the Bible to prove its a sin. Its obvious and plane that it is. And no one is saying we shouldnt love and forgive; but condoning and encouraging an abomination is not love.

 

[Beau]

To focus on certain phrases, ignoring the meta-themes of justice, forgiveness and love in the Bible is just an example of not seeing the forest for the trees and in my opinion a perversion of the original message.

The original messages in verses such as (but not limited to) Mathew 19: 4-6, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:9-11, and 2 Peter 2:6-10 seem pretty clear, and does not require any pruning to facilitate seeing the forest.

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

Its amazing, now the sodomites want to use the Jedi mind trick on us and tell us that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a sin.

 

[drewsicle3210]

Merry Christmas everyone!
Recognize the true reason that we are all here, on earth, in the Universe.
Celebrate in style this year, make sure everyone know what it is about! Celebrate the birth of Christ, our Lord and Savior.


Forget all if fancy stuff you don't need. Give it to people that need it.

I'M sick of going into a store seeing bratty kid begging for outrageous gifts. Or how About those 6--12 year olds with tablets and iPhone, and they still beg for more.


Well, anyways, MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!

 

[n87]

Merry Christmas to all!!!

 

[AE14]

Merry Christmas to all!!!

This was the best message of the thread. Forget the rest if the nonsense... Let's just wish each other well. N87..same to you and yours. Enjoy the time with family.

 

[kisaj]

This was the best message of the thread. Forget the rest if the nonsense... Let's just wish each other well. N87..same to you and yours. Enjoy the time with family.

No doubt. Disappointing to know that I correspond with so many bigots on here just based on this thread alone. Just further proof of how ridiculous religion is.

 

[tyga tyga]

No doubt. Disappointing to know that I correspond with so many bigots on here just based on this thread alone. Just further proof of how ridiculous religion is.

Bigotry applies to you just as much me. You're very well "devoted" to your opinion and belief system as much as I am. Don't get it twisted.

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

No doubt. Disappointing to know that I correspond with so many bigots on here just based on this thread alone. Just further proof of how ridiculous religion is.

This has nothing to do with bigotry. People disagree and thats it. Don't degrade others because they disagree with you.
Further; this is only partially about religion. Homosexuality would be repulsive to me even if there was mo religion. Its natural to be repulsed by it. That doesn't mean we should treat those who struggle with it with respect. But you cant force me to want to love two men committing sodomy.

 

[AE14]

This has nothing to do with bigotry. People disagree and thats it. Don't degrade others because they disagree with you.
Further; this is only partially about religion. Homosexuality would be repulsive to me even if there was mo religion. Its natural to be repulsed by it. That doesn't mean we should treat those who struggle with it with respect. But you cant force me to want to love two men committing sodomy.

This is where you lose me. No one cares if you love it. It is their life.. Not yours

By the same token... Can't get me to love the idea of selling my daughter into slavery per the old testament.

Now.. Go enjoy the holiday

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

This is where you lose me. No one cares if you love it. It is their life.. Not yours By the same token... Can't get me to love the idea of selling my daughter into slavery per the old testament. Now.. Go enjoy the holiday

Well when you are firing me or forcing me to bake cakes for them them you make my life your life.
As for the old Testament, we are not under the law of Moses and I dont know anyone who is demanding their right to sell their daughter into slavery.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

 

[AE14]

Well when you are firing me or forcing me to bake cakes for them them you make my life your life.
As for the old Testament, we are not under the law of Moses and I dont know anyone who is demanding their right to sell their daughter into slavery.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

I assume you are referencing your job? That is a choice you made. Might want to rethink your career choices then.

You disregard the OT? That opposes what Jesus wanted as an old testament teacher. Neither here nor there really. I would be happy to direct the New testament and show you the silliness, but I will just say

Merry Festivus ;-)

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

I assume you are referencing your job? That is a choice you made. Might want to rethink your career choices then. You disregard the OT? That opposes what Jesus wanted as an old testament teacher. Neither here nor there really. I would be happy to direct the New testament and show you the silliness, but I will just say Merry Festivus ;-)

So then you would say its ok if I fired someone who was a homosexual?

Jesus abolished the the law if Moses. Please school me on your knowledge of how Jesus wants me to sell my daughter into slavery.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

 

[AE14]

So then you would say its ok if I fired someone who was a homosexual?

Jesus abolished the the law if Moses. Please school me on your knowledge of how Jesus wants me to sell my daughter into slavery.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

Boy oh boy... You are certainly missing the point and seem to be prone to putting words in my mouth (metaphorically).

Jesus was an OT scholar. Nowhere in the NT did he state he was abolishing the words of Moses or starting a new religion. In act, his purpose, based on the 4 "accepted" gospels was to alter the temple hierarchy. However, now people actually look at the "sun" of man as more than intended. Thank you Constantine. B-)

For the true meaning of Christmas please review the winter festivals of ancient Saturnalia, with special references to Sol Invictus (original sun) and of course the many references to Mithras. I should probably bow out of this thread now, as the tone will change and not be productive.

I would say this.... If Jesus truly existed as written... Try to emulate hat and be accepting the way he would have been. Leave the homophobia at the door.

Happy Saturnalia

 

[CincyKiller45]

Christ told us there is a piece of his Kingdom inside all of us and let us focus on what unifies us and not what separates.

I cannot comprehend how people rebuke others because their ideas differ. You can be an; atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, homosexual, black, white, hispanic, etc. and that doesn't matter. Our ideas or God given traits might differ, but that doesn't mean we can't respect each other.

Joe, why the hell does it matter if you baked a cake for a non-Christian? You think Jesus would have said: "no I'm not baking your cake because I know someone who got fired for expressing his beliefs". That makes you no better than the other.

I also read your comment and I'm pretty sure you were hypothesizing that I was gay. I lol'd. Couldn't be further from the truth. I might believe it's disgusting, but that doesn't mean I believe God condemned it anymore than God promoted slavery. I'm not alone in this belief. There are pastors and biblical scholars alike that share my opinion.

I hope we can put this argument aside for Christ's day, but I doubt it. We are humans after all, the same ones who wrote the Bible.

Merry Christmas AM nation!

 

[AE14]

Christ told us there is a piece of his Kingdom inside all of us and let us focus on what unifies us and not what separates.

I cannot comprehend how people rebuke others because their ideas differ. You can be an; atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, homosexual, black, white, hispanic, etc. and that doesn't matter. Our ideas or God given traits might differ, but that doesn't mean we can't respect each other.

Joe, why the hell does it matter if you baked a cake for a non-Christian? You think Jesus would have said: "no I'm not baking your cake because I know someone who got fired for expressing his beliefs". That makes you no better than the other.

I also read your comment and I'm pretty sure you were hypothesizing that I was gay. I lol'd. Couldn't be further from the truth. I might believe it's disgusting, but that doesn't mean I believe God condemned it anymore than God promoted slavery. I'm not alone in this belief. There are pastors and biblical scholars alike that share my opinion.

I hope we can put this argument aside for Christ's day, but I doubt it. We are humans after all, the same ones who wrote the Bible.

Merry Christmas AM nation!

You sir are awesome. Well said and much respect. I sincerely hope you are enjoying the day with your family.

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

Boy oh boy... You are certainly missing the point and seem to be prone to putting words in my mouth (metaphorically). Jesus was an OT scholar. Nowhere in the NT did he state he was abolishing the words of Moses or starting a new religion. In act, his purpose, based on the 4 "accepted" gospels was to alter the temple hierarchy. However, now people actually look at the "sun" of man as more than intended. Thank you Constantine. B-) For the true meaning of Christmas please review the winter festivals of ancient Saturnalia, with special references to Sol Invictus (original sun) and of course the many references to Mithras. I should probably bow out of this thread now, as the tone will change and not be productive. I would say this.... If Jesus truly existed as written... Try to emulate hat and be accepting the way he would have been. Leave the homophobia at the door. Happy Saturnalia

Sorry for putting words in your mouth. Im sure where I did that but I was trying to apply what they did to Phil with anyone else who a boss doesn't agree with because of their life choices and beliefs.

As for Jesus being an OT scholar, of course He is He's the author of it. When I say Jesus abolished the law of Moses was I meant was we are not obligated to follow the ceremonial parts and he says that many times through out the NT. Paul flat out says it many times. Im not sure where you get that He wanted to wanted to alter the heirarchy so much as He wanted to point out their hypocrisy and how they wanted to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. And yes you are right He did not want to start a new religion. Christianity is a continuation of Judaism. Other began to call the followers of Christ Christians. Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah and we are simply following Him because He is God incarnate.
You dont have to bow out. Unlike the people who claim homosexuality is about love and tolerance and never show it if you disagree , i will not call you names.
As for Jesus existing, He is mentioned more in extra Biblical texts than is Tiberius Ceaser, he is also mentioned by Josephus. So whether you beljve is the Christ or not is one thing; but its indisputable that He existed.
I do try to emulate Him; I love and accept and treat with respect people who dont agree with me and I rebuke in love as Jesus did. Go and sin no more as He said to the adulterous.
I am not a homophobe, that word was invented to silence people who want us to accept a practice that is an abomination.

 

[AE14]

Sorry for putting words in your mouth. Im sure where I did that but I was trying to apply what they did to Phil with anyone else who a boss doesn't agree with because of their life choices and beliefs.

As for Jesus being an OT scholar, of course He is He's the author of it. When I say Jesus abolished the law of Moses was I meant was we are not obligated to follow the ceremonial parts and he says that many times through out the NT. Paul flat out says it many times. Im not sure where you get that He wanted to wanted to alter the heirarchy so much as He wanted to point out their hypocrisy and how they wanted to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. And yes you are right He did not want to start a new religion. Christianity is a continuation of Judaism. Other began to call the followers of Christ Christians. Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah and we are simply following Him because He is God incarnate.
You dont have to bow out. Unlike the people who claim homosexuality is about love and tolerance and never show it if you disagree , i will not call you names.
As for Jesus existing, He is mentioned more in extra Biblical texts than is Tiberius Ceaser, he is also mentioned by Josephus. So whether you beljve is the Christ or not is one thing; but its indisputable that He existed.
I do try to emulate Him; I love and accept and treat with respect people who dont agree with me and I rebuke in love as Jesus did. Go and sin no more as He said to the adulterous.
I am not a homophobe, that word was invented to silence people who want us to accept a practice that is an abomination.

Only a few things here...

1. in terms of his existence, there is little to no contemporary accounts of Jesus. The 4 accepted gospels were written well after the events possibly took place. You are correct, there are some cursory mention by Josephus. However, I would ask you to look further into scholarly interpretations as to whether or Josephus' writings are authentic. It is very torn to be honest.
2. Jesus being god? Please refer to the many mistranslations of Son of Man, specifically for the aramaic, hebrew, greek etc... translations. Not what you think.
3. The use of Paul as a reference point weakens the argument IMO. Here is a man that supposedly had a vision, and thus gave up years of persecution of Christians. He then altered the histories, and the future of the NT was greatly changed. I would also tell you to look into the Nicean Council in 325 CE as well as the Council of Hippo in 393. You will notice that your NT was not what you originally thought.
4. I never meant to "call names", so please accept my apologies. To call something an abomination is a very strong term that is quite offensive. There is much in the NT and OT that would be abominations. The funny thing with the homosexuality aspect, is that in the region where Jesus is believed to have existed, homosexuality was quite common, as it was in may ancient cultures at the time. Could it be that Jesus could have been gay?
5. Finally, as someone born and raised Jewish, Jesus does not fulfill the criteria set forth for the Messiah. In fact, he is missing many of them. If need be, I would be glad to explain this further.

Happy Saturnalia (just kidding, Merry Christmas)

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

Only a few things here...

1. in terms of his existence, there is little to no contemporary accounts of Jesus. The 4 accepted gospels were written well after the events possibly took place. You are correct, there are some cursory mention by Josephus. However, I would ask you to look further into scholarly interpretations as to whether or Josephus' writings are authentic. It is very torn to be honest.
2. Jesus being god? Please refer to the many mistranslations of Son of Man, specifically for the aramaic, hebrew, greek etc... translations. Not what you think.
3. The use of Paul as a reference point weakens the argument IMO. Here is a man that supposedly had a vision, and thus gave up years of persecution of Christians. He then altered the histories, and the future of the NT was greatly changed. I would also tell you to look into the Nicean Council in 325 CE as well as the Council of Hippo in 393. You will notice that your NT was not what you originally thought.
4. I never meant to "call names", so please accept my apologies. To call something an abomination is a very strong term that is quite offensive. There is much in the NT and OT that would be abominations. The funny thing with the homosexuality aspect, is that in the region where Jesus is believed to have existed, homosexuality was quite common, as it was in may ancient cultures at the time. Could it be that Jesus could have been gay?
5. Finally, as someone born and raised Jewish, Jesus does not fulfill the criteria set forth for the Messiah. In fact, he is missing many of them. If need be, I would be glad to explain this further.

Happy Saturnalia (just kidding, Merry Christmas)

AE14, no, your first point is not correct. If we discount the Gospels (which we should not; but I will let that go for now) we have several contemporary non-Christian extra Biblical accounts of Jesus. We have Josephus, we have Tacitus, we have Suetonius, we have Thallus, we have Pliny The Younger and some other minor cursory mentions of Him. As I stated before, if you count both contemporary and later non-Christian, non-Biblical accounts of Christ, we have MORE evidence of His existence than we do of Tiberius Ceaser.
As for Josephus's accuracy, yes, I know that some of his writings have come under scrutiny; but the fact that his mention of Christ was cursory as you stated, there is less reason to believe that it's not accurate.
As for the Gospels, first they cannot be rejected as accounts (although obviously not extra-Biblical), if we were to do that than we should reject all the accounts of Alexander The Great from his admirers you would have a lot less historical evidence of his existence.
Finally, the Gospels were written by Marc, Matthew, Luke and John within their life times, with Marc being written about the 40's A.D. and John being the last in about 60's A.D. We don't have the original writings but the oldest partial Gospel Of John is from 120 A.D. which means that it was written at least by that time or before since it was a copy of something else.
For your second point, I'm not sure what you're asking because you asked me to refer to "mistranslations"? I'm not sure if you were being cute and want me to refer to the Gospels or if that was a typo. If you want me to site the Gospels I will.
To your third point, I can't disagree more. The fact that Paul was a known persecutor of Christians and then did a 180 is prove that something life altering happened to him. I know about the Council Of Nicea in 325 AD, not sure what your point is on that. I vaguely heard about about the Council of Hippo but no nothing about it. I will look into it. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that because of the Council of Nicea my thoughts about the NT will change. Please elaborate. I don't want to assume and put words in your mouth.
I accept your apology, please accept mine.
Yes the word abomination is strong but it is the word the Bible uses. If this was not a Biblical discussion and we were just on the street corner in Brooklyn, I would use disgusting. If that is harsh as well, I'm sorry, that's how I feel. I like hairy vaginas, people have told me that's disgusting, should I get all bent out of shape? Yes there are much in the OT and NT that are abominations like lying, but you don't hear liars complain that it's offensive. The verse that Phil Robertson quoted from included heterosexual immorality as well. Did any fornicators demand he be taken off the air?
I'm not sure where you come to the conclusion that Jesus is what you said He is just because there were a lot of homosexuals in that area and it was common in ancient times; but you do make an interesting point. We are told that homosexuality is a birth and cannot be learned or is not a choice (I think it's a combination but that's another debate), so if what your saying is true that there was a lot of homosexuality in the ancient world than all that "I was born this way" stuff is not true.
As for Jesus fulfilling the criteria, yes He does. He was born in Bethlehem, He came out of Egypt, He was born of a virgin, He comes from the House of David and from the tribe of Juda, He made blind people see, there are more, let me know if you want all of them and I will e-mail you a list with OT Bible verses. Please explain where He didn't.
Sorry for the delay in my response but I was making merry with my family and friends.

 

[AE14]

Being a bit short on time, here is something to address your final point

• The true Messiah is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem—but Jesus lived while the Temple was still standing. Jeremiah 33:18
• The messiah will reestablish the Jewish religious law as the law of the land. Jeremiah 33:15
• Mesiah will save Israel
• He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of the world goernment. Isaiah 2:2-4, 11:10, 42:1
• The messiah will return all exiles to their homeland Isaiah 11:11-12
• Comes from the line of David

None of these were accomplished by Jesus, and thus, he is not the Jewish Messiah as prophesied by the OT

Also, add in how many Messiahs there were at the time performing miracles (I can provide a list if needed)

I will address the other points a bit later.

 

[AE14]

Ok, Please note, I am not saying Jesus didnt exist, all I am saying is that there is a minimal amount of contemporary sources of his actions. Additionally, there are just as many for the many other Messiahs of the same time (i.e.Simon of Paraea, Simon bar Kokhba, and even the Emperor Vespasian)

My point is, that to assume that the story of Jesus is accurate is quite short sighted imo. Jesus is a conglomeration of many pagan stories, myths, etc... all tied into one in an effort for the Romans to unify a fledgling empire.

I dont know if you have ever read the other gospels, but I would recommend it. They were tossed out until Hippo in 393

 

[JoeBrooklyn]

Being a bit short on time, here is something to address your final point

• The true Messiah is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem—but Jesus lived while the Temple was still standing. Jeremiah 33:18
• The messiah will reestablish the Jewish religious law as the law of the land. Jeremiah 33:15
• Mesiah will save Israel
• He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of the world goernment. Isaiah 2:2-4, 11:10, 42:1
• The messiah will return all exiles to their homeland Isaiah 11:11-12
• Comes from the line of David

None of these were accomplished by Jesus, and thus, he is not the Jewish Messiah as prophesied by the OT

Also, add in how many Messiahs there were at the time performing miracles (I can provide a list if needed)

I will address the other points a bit later.

With the exception of the last point (He was from the line of David), you are 100% correct. These were the exact same points Jews who did not believe He was the Christ gave. But the problem is with the interpretation of the prophecy (and obviously this is up for debate). The prophecy of the Christ in the OT was a dual prophecy. Kind of like looking at two mountains from a distance and not being able to see the valley in between. As for the other Messiahs performing miracles they never made blind people see or raise themselves from the dead. Those were huge.