More PROOF that EX-GAY Minstries DON't WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eastcoast_bsc]

I interpret the scriptures as did the ancient Jewish scholars from the time of Moses, ca, 1200 BC, and the early church the first 300-400 years. The inquisition occurred over 1000 years later, so it is irrelevant.

If you think the early church fathers did anything barbaric, bring it on.

Do you also believe that the messiah has yet to come?

 

[MercyBurst]

Only recently has the notion of "sexual oreintation" come about. Only recently have the feelings, emotions and attractions been seperated from the sex act.

I doupt ancient cultures had any idea that whatsoever they called gay sex went far beyond the simple act of sex.

Well we just go back to the very same verses in Romans 1 to rebutt your point:

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

It all starts when somebody thinks they are smarter than God.

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Then they start changing things: Man becomes god. Man says he evolved from fourfooted creatures and creeping things instead of being created by God, and down they go into depravity: if God didn't create man, then man can do whatever he wants.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Then, before you know it, they turn gay -- forgetting all about God and just pursuing their own desires.

That's how it works 1-2-3.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]When you look up the words Christians interpret to mean "homosexual", why does "same sex attraction", or "monogamous homosexual relationship" not show up anywhere on the list, if the Jews had such clear understanding of sexual orientation?[/SIZE]

When you look up the words Jewish scholars interpreted to mean "homosexual", Jewish scholars wrote they clearly understood "same sex attraction", or "monogamous homosexual relationship." You got a problem with that talk to them.

Read my posts. The ancient Jewish scholars clearly understood "same sex attraction" and "monogamous homosexual relationship"

Those are just the latest homosexual buzzwords, "Since God did not use certain specific words and phrases, then we can interpret, 'If a man lies with a man as with a woman it is an abomination' as being permitted by God if it is a 'same sex attraction' or 'monogamous homosexual relationship."

Clement described and condemned Lesbian marriage in the 2d century.

I thought that David and Jonathan was supposed to be a classic "same sex attraction" and a "monogamous homosexual relationship" and that they allegedly exchanged "wedding vows." If that is true, how could the Jewish scholars, at that time, NOT understand?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I didn't say did, I said believed.[/SIZE]

Bring it!

[SIZE=-1]Do you also believe that the messiah has yet to come?[/SIZE]

. . . . [SIZE=+2]"[/SIZE]

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Bring it!



. . . . [SIZE=+2]"[/SIZE]

Well you seem so smitten by all the rabonis teaching and interpetations of scripture, yet they missed the second coming. I would say that initself opens up a can of worms.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Well you seem so smitten by all the rabonis teaching and interpetations of scripture, yet they missed the second coming. I would say that initself opens up a can of worms.[/SIZE]

Not good, not good at all. I think you meant to say the first coming, the second has not occurred, yet.

It was prophesied ca. 700 years beforehand that the Jews would reject their Messiah. Why would it be a can of worms that they actually fulfilled prophecy?

What did Jesus say about the teachings of the Jewish leaders of his day?

Matthew 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.​

And if I should not accept the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures for the past 3000 years +/-, whose should I accept, yours? Can you read Hebrew? Can you locate a Hebrew verb? Do you even know what that means? I can do both.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Not good, not good at all. I think you meant to say the first coming, the second has not occurred, yet.

It was prophesied ca. 700 years beforehand that the Jews would reject their Messiah. Why would it be a can of worms that they actually fulfilled prophecy?


What did Jesus say about the teachings of the Jewish leaders of his day?

Matthew 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.​

And if I should not accept the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures for the past 3000 years +/-, whose should I accept, yours? Can you read Hebrew? Can you locate a Hebrew verb? Do you even know what that means? I can do both.

My point is that you are touting the Jews interpretation regarding scripture, but yet they missed the biggest event that happened in history, that of the Messiah coming to dwell among us.
And big deal I can't read Hebrew. I can read a financial statement and balance sheet, can you?

 

[UnitedInChrist]

My point is that you are touting the Jews interpretation regarding scripture, but yet they missed the biggest event that happened in history, that of the Messiah coming to dwell among us.
And big deal I can't read Hebrew. I can read a financial statement and balance sheet, can you?

great post

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]My point is that you are touting the Jews interpretation regarding scripture, but yet they missed the biggest event that happened in history, that of the Messiah coming to dwell among us.
And big deal I can't read Hebrew. I can read a financial statement and balance sheet, can you?[/SIZE]

This is known as a red herring, it has nothing to do with this thread or topic. As a matter of fact, I am not an accountant but I can read a financial statement and balance sheet.

You are only partially correct. Many Jews did miss "the biggest event that happened in history, that of the Messiah coming to dwell among us" But, all the disciples were Jews, even leaders of the Sanhedrin believed on Jesus. However, your point is still irrelevant, those Jews who did not accept Jesus were fulfilling prophecy.

If you can't read Hebrew, as you have admitted, you have no rational basis for claiming anything about the interpretation of the Jewish scholars, based on the fact that some of them fulfilled prophecy. So what? Jesus said do what they said do but not what they practiced.

This argument is no different than the one that goes, "The Bible condones slavery, and people today eat shell fish, so that justifies me having sex with anyone, or anything, any time I want to."

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

This is known as a red herring, it has nothing to do with this thread or topic. As a matter of fact, I am not an accountant but I can read a financial statement and balance sheet.

You are only partially correct. Many Jews did miss "the biggest event that happened in history, that of the Messiah coming to dwell among us" But, all the disciples were Jews, even leaders of the Sanhedrin believed on Jesus. However, your point is still irrelevant, those Jews who did not accept Jesus were fulfilling prophecy.

If you can't read Hebrew, as you have admitted, you have no rational basis for claiming anything about the interpretation of the Jewish scholars, based on the fact that some of them fulfilled prophecy. So what? Jesus said do what they said do but not what they practiced.

This argument is no different than the one that goes, "The Bible condones slavery, and people today eat shell fish, so that justifies me having sex with anyone, or anything, any time I want to."

No it is actually you using "apeal to authority" You point to Jewish teachers as authority to try and prove your points. You also try to intimidate others by pretending you speak and write Hebrew. But yet the authority you claim, such as the Hebrew scholars studied the law but yet were blind.

John 5:38,39; "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life."

The scholars you quote missed this. So they the alledged scholars who knew hebrew were lacking the spirit. They were so caught up in the word that they missed the point.

 

[MercyBurst]

My point is that you are touting the Jews interpretation regarding scripture, but yet they missed the biggest event that happened in history, that of the Messiah coming to dwell among us.
And big deal I can't read Hebrew. I can read a financial statement and balance sheet, can you?

Actually they had it figured quite well as Matthew tells us in Chapter 2:

3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
And thou Micah 5:2, John 7:42

Originally Posted by UnitedInChrist
great post

thank you.

 

[PinkTulip]

Well you seem so smitten by all the rabonis teaching and interpetations of scripture, yet they missed the second coming. I would say that initself opens up a can of worms.

Jesus obeyed the law and commandments. Was He wrong for doing so?

"He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked."

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]No it is actually you using "apeal to authority" You point to Jewish teachers as authority to try and prove your points. You also try to intimidate others by pretending you speak and write Hebrew. But yet the authority you claim, such as the Hebrew scholars studied the law but yet were blind.[/SIZE]

Demonstrating once again you don't know what your are talking about.

Appeal to Authority(argumentum ad verecundiam )

Definition: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious.

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.​

I cite the same types credible authorities that concordances, dictionaries, and lexicons use. How words were used/unsderstood by the historical native speakers of that language The root definitions of words, in and of themself, have nothing to do with whether or not someone missed a particular historical event.

As I said, your argument, what the 1st century Jews did or did not miss, is irrelevant. The fact that the Jews would reject their Messiah was prophesied. Now show me where, God gave prophesy that you could pick and choose where their interpretation of scripture was wrong?

[SIZE=-1]The scholars you quote missed this. So they the alledged scholars who knew hebrew were lacking the spirit. They were so caught up in the word that they missed the point.[/SIZE]

They missed NOTHING, it was prophesied and Jesus addressed that in the verse I posted, which blows your entire argument out of the water.

Matthew 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.​

Note this says do not do after their works. The verse you quoted says, "you are unwilling to come to Me" Their "works" were they refused to come to Jesus. Jesus said do not do after their works.

And OBTW virtually all the stuff quoted here in support of homosexual arguments are logical fallacies, appeal to authority, hearsay, 2d and 3d hand quotes from anonymous websites.

 

[Brieuse]

And OBTW virtually all the stuff quoted here in support of homosexual arguments are logical fallacies, appeal to authority, hearsay, 2d and 3d hand quotes from anonymous websites.

ah yes of course. And only all the homosexual websites are guilty of that. None of the ex-gay websites do that, they all have credible evidence and credible statistics to back up their claims that homosexuality is caused by bad parenting, or is an addiction, or or or. Never mind, I've seen so much wacky commentary on their websites that I can't remember it all. Well at least they have solid proof that homosexuals can be completely "healed".

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]ah yes of course. And only all the homosexual websites are guilty of that. None of the ex-gay websites do that, they all have credible evidence and credible statistics to back up their claims that homosexuality is caused by bad parenting, or is an addiction, or or or. Never mind, I've seen so much wacky commentary on their websites that I can't remember it all. Well at least they have solid proof that homosexuals can be completely "healed".[/SIZE]

[size=+1]בלאה בלאה בלאה בלאה בלאה בלאה [/size]

 

[davedjy]

Demonstrating once again you don't know what your are talking about.

Appeal to Authority(argumentum ad verecundiam )

Definition: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious.

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.​

I cite the same types credible authorities that concordances, dictionaries, and lexicons use. How words were used/unsderstood by the historical native speakers of that language The root definitions of words, in and of themself, have nothing to do with whether or not someone missed a particular historical event.

As I said, your argument, what the 1st century Jews did or did not miss, is irrelevant. The fact that the Jews would reject their Messiah was prophesied. Now show me where, God gave prophesy that you could pick and choose where their interpretation of scripture was wrong?


They missed NOTHING, it was prophesied and Jesus addressed that in the verse I posted, which blows your entire argument out of the water.

Matthew 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.​

Note this says do not do after their works. The verse you quoted says, "you are unwilling to come to Me" Their "works" were they refused to come to Jesus. Jesus said do not do after their works.

And OBTW virtually all the stuff quoted here in support of homosexual arguments are logical fallacies, appeal to authority, hearsay, 2d and 3d hand quotes from anonymous websites.

Again, more commentary to TRY to support your claims with the same old tired link. Not all scholars agree, Walter Wink being only ONE of the many I quoted.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Again, more commentary to TRY to support your claims with the same old tired link. Not all scholars agree, Walter Wink being only ONE of the many I quoted.[/SIZE]

Your opinion of what is or is not a valid source is irrelevant. You have demonstrated no independent education or expertise in any topic on this board. Thus far everythiing you post is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority, hearsay. You copy/paste undocumented, unreferenced 2d-3d hand alleged "quotes" from unidentified people.

You do not, have never, quoted any primary source, any direct quotation from any "scholar' qualified to speak on any topic on this board. NEVER!

I quote primary sources, and clearly identify the source and who the authors are. Colleges and universities require this as an absolute minimum.

Professor Michael Harvey
Washington College
300 Washington Ave.
Chestertown, MD 21620

Citation is the act of identifying sources. A citation names the author and work and provides sufficient bibliographic information to allow the reader to track down the original source. Sometimes students fall into plagiarism because they're not aware of the standards for scholarly citation. Here are some general guidelines for how to cite properly:

Provide citations for direct quotations and paraphrases, for ideas, and for anything else you take from an original source, such as the structure of an argument.

Don't skimp on research. Ending up with just a couple of works to cite generally is inadequate.

If you draw a considerable number of references from an article or book, don't pretend that gathering them has been your own labor. Clarify what you've borrowed with a statement like Smith (1999) provides helpful references to this literature. Better yet, do the work of gathering citations yourself.

Don't put a catch-all citation at the end of a paragraph. Cite as you use.
In general, as you do research and take notes, make sure to keep full bibliographic information notes. If you're sloppy at the start, you'll have no hope later on of reconstructing your citations.

For more specific formatting styles, see the upcoming sections on MLA, APA, Chicago, and CBE citation styles.

http://nutsandbolts.washcoll.edu/plagiarism.html​

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Demonstrating once again you don't know what your are talking about.

Appeal to Authority(argumentum ad verecundiam )​

Definition: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:​

(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,​

(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.​

(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious.​

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.​

I cite the same types credible authorities that concordances, dictionaries, and lexicons use. How words were used/unsderstood by the historical native speakers of that language The root definitions of words, in and of themself, have nothing to do with whether or not someone missed a particular historical event.

As I said, your argument, what the 1st century Jews did or did not miss, is irrelevant. The fact that the Jews would reject their Messiah was prophesied. Now show me where, God gave prophesy that you could pick and choose where their interpretation of scripture was wrong?



They missed NOTHING, it was prophesied and Jesus addressed that in the verse I posted, which blows your entire argument out of the water.

Matthew 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.​

Note this says do not do after their works. The verse you quoted says, "you are unwilling to come to Me" Their "works" were they refused to come to Jesus. Jesus said do not do after their works.

And OBTW virtually all the stuff quoted here in support of homosexual arguments are logical fallacies, appeal to authority, hearsay, 2d and 3d hand quotes from anonymous websites.

The usual control C; control V

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]The usual control C; control V [/SIZE]

The usual emesis, proving you have NO! ZERO! NONE! credible argument.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I had a credible argument and you know it. But you responded in the usual disjointed fashion, by copying and pasting whatever supported your rebuttal.