Is Jesus responsible for what Paul said?

[Subduction Zone]

No one has yet shown any real flaw or error in the Bible. Errors are usually only in the interpretations, not in the Bible.

It depends upon what one calls an "error". Is the fact that there was no flood of Noah an error? Are failed prophecies errors?

 

[Avoice1C]

All former Christians I know left the church based on Paul’s teachings and words, or those attributed to him. None of them had issues with anything Jesus said or taught.

Then they did as Peter said of Paul. Took Paul's complicated way of putting things out of context or would not follow the discipline that Paul himself did. I've read thoroughly all of Paul's writings and he upheld Jesus's teachings which followed Hebrew Scriptures. Paul drew on both.

 

[Avoice1C]

Just misinterpreted. Or manipulated. Sorry, Jesus never said anything about women shutting up, or "effeminates", either as his own material or recycled from the OT.

So you say. I feel that it is drawn from the Biblical writings it simply does not quote them.

 

[Gallowglass]

Then they did as Peter said of Paul. Took Paul's complicated way of putting things out of context or would not follow the discipline that Paul himself did. I've read thoroughly all of Paul's writings and he upheld Jesus's teachings which followed Hebrew Scriptures. Paul drew on both.

I’ve read them thoroughly as well, and I disagree, but as it is not my faith, I don’t really have a horse in this race. My statement was meant purely to show that Pauline teachings do drive many away from the church.

 

[Avoice1C]

Wow. That is...interesting. Jesus actively does talk about men who are “eunuchs from their mother’s womb,” which was a legal term used for gay men in Ancient Rome. We have many laws that allow them to adopt, and many writers who claim so and so is off getting it on with natural eunuchs. Jesus says nothing about them going to hell or being punished.

So actually you’re wrong. Secondly, the Hebrew Scriptures only prohibit anal sex. (Having sex with another man, like you would with a woman.) Many gay people do not have anal sex, just like many lesbians do not use strap-ons.

That is interesting. I thought the word Gay meant an attraction to the same gender. You obviously know more of the lifestyle than I do.

A "eunuch" from the mother's womb would be a natural transexual in our day and age. And as long as such a one did not have sex, God would certainly accept the one. As for them adopting it may well be the law but, some of us do not agree with it.

 

[Gallowglass]

That is interesting. I thought the word Gay meant an attraction to the same gender. You obviously know more of the lifestyle than I do.

A "eunuch" from the mother's womb would be a natural transexual in our day and age. And as long as such a one did not have sex, God would certainly accept the one. As for them adopting it may well be the law but, some of us do not agree with it.

No. A eunuch from the mother’s womb, in Roman times, referred to a homosexual male who could not be aroused by women. That’s all it meant. It certainly did not mean celibacy in that time period, nor did Jesus ever say they should be in his only statement about them. It did not mean a transgender person.

You can agree with it or not, but there are biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. They exist. The only thing ever forbidden in the Bible is anal sex.

 

[Avoice1C]

No. A eunuch from the mother’s womb, in Roman times, referred to a homosexual male who could not be aroused by women. That’s all it meant. It certainly did not mean celibacy in that time period, nor did Jesus ever say they should be in his only statement about them. It did not mean a transgender person.

You can agree with it or not, but there are biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. They exist. The only thing ever forbidden in the Bible is anal sex.

I believe that a transgender (the term has become misapplied) is a child born with both genders presenting not a homosexual.

 

[Jainarayan]

So you say. I feel that it is drawn from the Biblical writings it simply does not quote them.

As I said, manipulated. Used to fulfill an agenda. All scriptures have been treated thusly, not only the Bible. Yes, even Hindu and Buddhist scriptures. Men with agendas transcend all religions.

 

[sojourner]

No, they don’t. Paul goes off on tangents and makes it up as he goes along. He says things that would make Jesus cringe.

No. He really doesn’t.

 

[Gallowglass]

No, that

I believe that a transgender (the term has become misapplied) is a child born with both genders presenting not a homosexual.

That would be a hermaphrodite. They were considered especially blessed in Greaco-Roman culture and named after Hermaphroditus or Hermaphroditos, son of Aphrodite and Hermes, who was merged into one body with the female nymph Salmacis. We refer to someone like this as intersex or intersexed.

A transgender person is not necessarily homosexual, and most certainly not all homosexuals are transgender.

 

[sojourner]

No one has yet shown any real flaw or error in the Bible. Errors are usually only in the interpretations, not in the Bible.

BZZZZZZZZT!!! I’m sorry; that’s incorrect, but thanks for playing our game. Your parting gifts will include an all-expenses paid trip to Bible Scholarship Land (blinders not included), plus a home version of our game.

 

[1213]

It depends upon what one calls an "error". Is the fact that there was no flood of Noah an error?

I would say the flood is fact, because we have so much evidence of it. And we have no good reason to think it is not a fact.

Are failed prophecies errors?

There are no failed prophesies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say the flood is fact, because we have so much evidence of it. And we have no good reason to think it is not a fact.

There is no evidence of the flood. You are confused at best. There is almost endless evidence against it. In fact so much evidence that by claiming there was a flood you are also claiming that God is a liar.

There are no failed prophesies.

Another Christian that has never studied the Bible.

 

[starsofirelight]

I have read all of the great posts here and I studied this in Gods word.

Remember------ Peter, who received the faiths and teachings that were directly transmitted from Yahoshua Himself.

Saint Peter, in fact, Himself, did continue on in erroneous, perverted and false, mistaken teachings and doctrines. Peter also at times was in great error. Peter loved Yahoshua with all of his heart, Peter had nothing but love and emotional protection concerning the demand made by Peter - that Yahoshua should not die on the cross..

But - in - Luk 4:8 Yahoshua answered and said unto Peter, get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.

The words that Peter was saying was something that Yahoshua felt was a satanic message.

Saint Paul, also proved that Peter was teaching doctrines and teachings that were erroneous, false and perverted.

REMEMBER - Gal_2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was condemned.

Really….. Yes - The Bible *proves* again and again and again that people who believe the faith transmitted by faithful witnesses to the mighty acts of the living God in Christ Yahoshua that trust in Him are able to fall into perversity and error

I ask You - The critics of St. Paul - What was the teachings of Paul that were different from any other author of the New Testament - OR - HOW IS PAUL'S MESSAGE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT ?

 

[Avoice1C]

As I said, manipulated. Used to fulfill an agenda. All scriptures have been treated thusly, not only the Bible. Yes, even Hindu and Buddhist scriptures. Men with agendas transcend all religions.

Here are some of the scriptures that lead to my statements. Am I twisting the Bible or are you?

Men are favored the priests were men, women came to pray
Gen 21:17 God heard the boy's voice, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What's wrong with you, Hagar? Don't be afraid, because God has heard the voice of the boy in his present situation.


Gen 21:11 Avraham became very distressed over this matter of his son.

Gen 21:12 But God said to Avraham, "Don't be distressed because of the boy and your slave-girl. Listen to everything Sarah says to you, because it is your descendants through Yitz'chak who will be counted.


Exo 19:15 He said to the people, "Prepare for the third day; don't approach a woman."


Exo 21:2 "If you purchase a Hebrew slave, he is to work six years; but in the seventh, he is to be given his freedom without having to pay anything.
Exo 21:3 If he came single, he is to leave single; if he was married when he came, his wife is to go with him when he leaves.


Exo 32:2 Aharon said to them, "Have your wives, sons and daughters strip off their gold earrings; and bring them to me."


Exo 19:24 But Adonai answered him, "Go, get down! Then come back up, you and Aharon with you. But don't let the cohanim and the people force their way through to come up to Adonai, or he will break out against them."

Exo 19:25 So Moshe went down to the people and told them.


1Sa_1:9 So Hannah got up after they had finished eating and drinking in Shiloh. `Eli the cohen was sitting on his seat by the doorpost of the temple of Adonai.
Hannah was praying to God. Women went to the Temple to pray as did men.
1Sa_1:13 Hannah was speaking in her heart—her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard—so `Eli thought she was drunk.

1Sa_1:15 But Hannah answered, "No, my lord, I am a very unhappy woman. I have not drunk either wine or other strong liquor; rather, I've been pouring out my soul before Adonai.

 

[Avoice1C]

No, that

That would be a hermaphrodite. They were considered especially blessed in Greaco-Roman culture and named after Hermaphroditus or Hermaphroditos, son of Aphrodite and Hermes, who was merged into one body with the female nymph Salmacis. We refer to someone like this as intersex or intersexed.

A transgender person is not necessarily homosexual, and most certainly not all homosexuals are transgender.

What you said here makes sense. Jesus was Jewish not Greaco-Roman.

 

[Avoice1C]

No. A eunuch from the mother’s womb, in Roman times, referred to a homosexual male who could not be aroused by women. That’s all it meant. It certainly did not mean celibacy in that time period, nor did Jesus ever say they should be in his only statement about them. It did not mean a transgender person.

You can agree with it or not, but there are biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. They exist. The only thing ever forbidden in the Bible is anal sex.

Here are some scriptures and a definition that prove you wrong and shows how Jews and today's scholars see eunuchs.
Isa_39:7 'They will carry off some of your descendants, your own offspring; and they will be made eunuchs serving in the palace of the king of Bavel."

Isa_56:4 For here is what Adonai says: "As for the eunuchs who keep my Shabbats, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant:

Mat_19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

eu·nuch [ˈyo͞onək]

noun

a man who has been castrated, especially (in the past) one employed to guard the women's living areas at an oriental court.

origin

Old English, via Latineunuchus from Greekeunoukhos, literally ‘bedroom guard’, from eunē‘bed’ + a second element related to ekhein‘to hold’.

 

[Gallowglass]

Here are some scriptures and a definition that prove you wrong and shows how Jews and today's scholars see eunuchs.
Isa_39:7 'They will carry off some of your descendants, your own offspring; and they will be made eunuchs serving in the palace of the king of Bavel."

Isa_56:4 For here is what Adonai says: "As for the eunuchs who keep my Shabbats, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant:

Mat_19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

eu·nuch [ˈyo͞onək]

noun

a man who has been castrated, especially (in the past) one employed to guard the women's living areas at an oriental court.

origin

Old English, via Latineunuchus from Greekeunoukhos, literally ‘bedroom guard’, from eunē‘bed’ + a second element related to ekhein‘to hold’.

Jesus was Jewish, in the Roman empire. "Made eunuchs," as referred to in the scriptures, are men who were castrated. What we're talking about are "natural-born eunuchs" or "eunuchs from their mother's womb." There were differnt types. Everything you are quoting refers to made eunuchs. Here are some things to show what I mean.

We are talking about this verse specifically --
“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

So those who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven didn't actually castrate themselves, they were celibate. Jesus still refers to them as eunuchs. Why? Because he's talking about the three types of people who should not marry women.

So what about born eunuchs? Well, Jewish culture at the time, as evidenced by Rabbi Eliezer, felt that these were specifically overly feminine gay men. We actually see this in the Talmud, so we know for a fact that Jewish people knew and used the term. So, Jesus would know the term. They discuss it in the Talmud in reference to a levirate marriage. According to the Talmud, a made eunuch must go through a shaming ceremony if he cannot fulfill his levirate marriage, but a eunuch-by-nature does not.

" A eunuch-by-nature neither submits to chalitsah nor is chalitsah arranged for his wife, since there never was a time when he was fit." Rabbi Akibah says this much.

Rabbi Eliezer disagreed and said, like many erroneously do now, that eunuchs-by-nature could be cured. "Not so, but a eunuch-by-nature submits to chalitsah and chalitsah is also arranged for his wife, because he may be cured. A man-made eunuch neither submits to chalitsah nor is chalitsah arranged for his wife, since he cannot be cured."

So, obviously Jesus knew the term, and knew what it meant. It was clearly in the Talmud. It was also a large part of Roman law, and Jesus lived in the Roman Empire.
In Lex Julia et Papia, Book 1, a book of Roman law, it states: "Eunuch is a general designation: the term includes those who are eunuchs by nature, the crushed and the pounded, as well as any other kind of eunuch," So there were three kinds, only one of which your references are talking about.
Continuing in the law books... later it gives lists of who can determine an heir not of their body. (D 28.2.6) says that someone who cannot easily procreate is nonetheless entitled to institute a posthumous heir, but it gives no concrete examples of such a man. it states separately that the "natural born eunuch" holds this right as well, while "castrated men" expressly do not.

So yes, Jesus talked about gay men, and he never condemned them. All he ever says is that they're not to marry women.

 

[1213]

There is no evidence of the flood.

We have lot of evidence:
- Orogenic mountains
- vast sediment formations
- Marine fossils on high mountains
- oil and gas fields (results of vast amount of dying organic material)
- Old coast lines
- Continents

Here are few pictures that show the principle how it happened:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

There is almost endless evidence against it.

You probably think so, because you don’t understand how it happened. When you understand it correctly, you can see that there is no evidence against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have lot of evidence:
- Orogenic mountains
- vast sediment formations
- Marine fossils on high mountains
- oil and gas fields (results of vast amount of dying organic material)
- Old coast lines
- Continents

Here are few pictures that show the principle how it happened:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html



You probably think so, because you don’t understand how it happened. When you understand it correctly, you can see that there is no evidence against it.

All of that is evidence against the flood. Try to find an actual science based site if you want people to take you seriously.

We know how mountains formed. We know how sediments were deposited. We know how fossils got on top of mountains.

Oil and gas fields are not from just any "organic matter" they are from organic matter that could not have formed from the flood. You are barely skimming the surface and of course getting the wrong answers.