One Jesus, two testimonies?

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

Someone else mentioned Calvinism, not me. Mercyburst responded by saying that Calvinism did not involve a debate about sin, and I noted that there was a debate about sin between Calvinists and Arminians.

Yes ok but I asked you why you mentioned it when you don’t believe them? As you have just said to me why mention same-sex sex if it doesn’t involve me, and I explained why it did, yet you mention things that you admit don’t involve you.

It is not true that nearly all Christians agree or have agreed about what is sin. Christians today do not agree about whether same-sex relations are sin.

Well yes they do agree what is sin, that’s one of the things that makes them Christians. I think you are once again trying to get into the argument about what makes a Christian.

Please stop twisting my words. You know I did not say that Jesus was anti-gay.

I have asked you not to misrepresent what I have said and now you do so again. I said ‘it appears’ that mean by implication. If I see Jesus NT teaching says same-sex sex is a sin and you think that means gay people then you either don’t believe Jesus NT teaching or you do see Jesus as anti-gay

Jesus, as far as we know, never said anthing about gay people or about our love relationships.

On the contrary as far as we know Jesus taught that God’s purpose is man and woman and that same-sex sex is error. Matt 19, Romans 1.

To presume to speak for millions is, well, a little presumptuous, don't you think?

Not if its obviously true. As a member of the Anglican church which has millions of members who believe the Bible its fairly obvious

Please correct me if I somehow misunderstood you. Are you saying that same-sex relations do not lead to eternal death? In response to kiwimac's post that same-sex relations are not destructive, you wrote the following: "We believe Jesus Christ is the truth, the absolute truth and anything we do that leads to eternal death is of course destructive."

My comment was merely about anything that leads to eternal death is destructive.
As to same-sex sex I don’t you don’t believe Jesus Christ’s NT teaching on this

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
Yes ok but I asked you why you mentioned it when you don’t believe them? As you have just said to me why mention same-sex sex if it doesn’t involve me, and I explained why it did, yet you mention things that you admit don’t involve you.

Well yes they do agree what is sin, that’s one of the things that makes them Christians. I think you are once again trying to get into the argument about what makes a Christian.

I have asked you not to misrepresent what I have said and now you do so again. I said ‘it appears’ that mean by implication. If I see Jesus NT teaching says same-sex sex is a sin and you think that means gay people then you either don’t believe Jesus NT teaching or you do see Jesus as anti-gay
On the contrary as far as we know Jesus taught that God’s purpose is man and woman and that same-sex sex is error. Matt 19, Romans 1.

Not if its obviously true. As a member of the Anglican church which has millions of members who believe the Bible its fairly obvious

My comment was merely about anything that leads to eternal death is destructive.
As to same-sex sex I don’t you don’t believe Jesus Christ’s NT teaching on this

Jesus never said anything about same-sex relations. You may interpret the whole New Testament as the teachings of Jesus, but I don't. Paul was not Jesus. As for the Anglican Church, your church body seems currently split over the question of whether same-sex relations are sin.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

I do care when you say that a person can't be Christian and be gay, or that a person can't be Christian and support same-sex marriage.

Well I do care if someone claims they can be a Christian and support same-sex unions and that’s why I debating with you.

I think that's trying to exclude people from the faith on the basis of a particular interpretation of the Bible,

I think you are trying to include people in the faith based on deception of what the Bible says as interpretation when it isnt interpretation but disbelief.

and not all Christians agree with that interpretation or with that notion of what being a Christian means.

Yes they could, if they don’t believe the Bible they may not be Christians, you are judging who is and who isnt Christian again by your definition.
But you don’t believe the Bible so how can you be talking about Christians and the Bible and have a Christian icon?

 

[Ohioprof]

<font face="Arial"> My comment was merely about anything that leads to eternal death is destructive.

Were you not, then, suggesting that same-sex relations lead to eternal death? Or are you saying that this is not the case....that same-sex relations do not, in your view, lead to eternal death?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

Jesus never said anything about same-sex relations.

Yes He did in the Bible, its just that you dont believe the Bible see the evidence in 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2

You may interpret the whole New Testament as the teachings of Jesus, but I don't.

Yes thank you I will, it is you who many not as you have said you dont believe it.

Paul was not Jesus.

Firstly, never mind Paul, you dont even believe Jesus was Jesus because you dont believe the Bible, and secondly if you did believe the Bible you would know that none of the Biblical writers were Jesus themselves.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

Were you not, then, suggesting that same-sex relations lead to eternal death? Or are you saying that this is not the case....that same-sex relations do not, in your view, lead to eternal death?

I am saying and have pointed out to you that the Bible warns that is probable, but I accept you dont believe the Bible

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
Well I do care if someone claims they can be a Christian and support same-sex unions and that’s why I debating with you.
I think you are trying to include people in the faith based on deception of what the Bible says as interpretation when it isnt interpretation but disbelief.
Yes they could, if they don’t believe the Bible they may not be Christians, you are judging who is and who isnt Christian again by your definition.
But you don’t believe the Bible so how can you be talking about Christians and the Bible and have a Christian icon?

I am a Christian. I have a Unitarian icon, only because there is no icon for Unitarian Universalists. I am a Unitarian Universalist Christian. I do not hold the same beliefs that you do, about a number of issues, but that does not mean I am not a Christian. I am just different from you.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

am a Christian. I have a Unitarian icon, only because there is no icon for Unitarian Universalists. I am a Unitarian Universalist Christian. I do not hold the same beliefs that you do, about a number of issues, but that does not mean I am not a Christian. I am just different from you.

Well I think we are back to square one again in that you clealry dont have the same Jesus Christ. And its not about having a few different views, if you dont believe the Bible as the testimony then you dont have faith in the same Jesus Christ. I have told you the dictioanry defintion as well as others now telling you.
The thread si afterall about tewo different testimonies of Jesus Christ, the Biblical one and yours.

 

[kiwimac]

Dear Ohioprof,
Well I think we are back to square one again in that you clealry dont have the same Jesus Christ. And its not about having a few different views, if you dont believe the Bible as the testimony then you dont have faith in the same Jesus Christ. I have told you the dictioanry defintion as well as others now telling you.
The thread si afterall about tewo different testimonies of Jesus Christ, the Biblical one and yours.

You are putting in place a dichotomy that exists only in the mind of some evangelicals and fundamentalists. Your opinion on this matter is OK, asserting that it is the ONLY VALID opinion is not.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Kiwimac,

The dichotomy is in place and a fact, a reality because if someone doesn&#8217;t believe the Biblical testimony of Jesus then they have a different Jesus whether you like that idea or not.

The attempt by some on this board to re-define Christianity should be challenged at all times

 

[kiwimac]

Nope. To disbelieve the Bible is not to disbelieve necessarily in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and / or anything else you might choose to mention.

 

[MercyBurst]

Nope. To disbelieve the Bible is not to disbelieve necessarily in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and / or anything else you might choose to mention.

Hindus are in complete agreement with your statement. They believe in God, Jesus, and thousands of other deities. I know from my short flirtation with the Hari Krishna movement back in my pre-christian days.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Kiwimac,

Nope. To disbelieve the Bible is not to disbelieve necessarily in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and / or anything else you might choose to mention.

Well yes it does, thats the whole point.
To help you realise this fact, consider from where other than the Bible you can know about God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Christian church decided that the canon scripture was true in order to eliminate false teaching. What you seem to be saying is you dont recognise the Christian church or its teaching.

However as I said The dichotomy is in place and a fact, a reality, because if someone doesn’t believe the Biblical testimony of Jesus then they have a different Jesus

 

[Phinehas2]

Thank you Mercyburst,
Muslims are also in agreement with Kiwimac's statement, the only people who arent are Christians.

 

[MercyBurst]

Firstly, never mind Paul, you dont even believe Jesus was Jesus because you dont believe the Bible, and secondly if you did believe the Bible you would know that none of the Biblical writers were Jesus themselves.

My sister was a unitarian. She used to say they took the best of all the different religions and used those pieces to construct their beliefs. I told her that Jesus IS the BEST of ALL religions.

By the way, universalists believe everyone is going to heaven, but Jesus Himself made it VERY CLEAR that not everyone that says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven.

So did the bible lie, did Jesus lie, or is universalism a lie?

Well it looks like universalists don't believe in Jesus after all, at least not the one in the bible.

 

[MercyBurst]

Thank you Mercyburst,
Muslims are also in agreement with Kiwimac's statement, the only people who arent are Christians.

Good point Phinehas. The only people that really aren't "Christians" are Christians.

 

[Phinehas2]

Good point Phinehas. The only people that really aren't "Christians" are Christians.

Very good point Mercyburst, thats why we keep hearing that Christian views are just conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist/etc views, in order to sideline Christianity into a cult and to replace it with something else.

 

[kiwimac]

Nope, Phineas2, you keep hearing it because your brand of Christianity is all those things. Mine is liberal and accepting of others.

 

[MercyBurst]

Nope, Phineas2, you keep hearing it because your brand of Christianity is all those things. Mine is liberal and accepting of others.

I was a Hari Krishna Christian.

We're all gods!

Can you get any more loving and accepting than that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_krishna#The_seven_purposes_of_ISKCON

 

[MercyBurst]

Thank you Mercyburst,
Muslims are also in agreement with Kiwimac's statement, the only people who arent are Christians.

Phinehas, does it bother you that the same Jesus tells one group of followers to be gay, and the other group to depart from it before it kills them?

We agree on the bible, but let's set it aside for a minute.

Focus on this one fact: Jesus brings life to ALL believers.

So how can same-sex bring spirtual life to one group and spiritual death to another group?

This can not be.

If same-sex results in spiritual death for anyone, then it must be wrong.

This totally changes the playing field where ANY exception proves there is impurity in the gay-affirming doctrine.

See how this works?

If you don't then I'll explain it offline. We've been letting them have all the real estate in this debate. It's time to take it back.