Why did god create homosexuality?

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Tacitus.

Remember, though, that the bible isn't a single source. It's a library of source material. There are 27 canonical books, and many others that are non-canonical -- all dealing with Jesus. I doubt that I'm mentioned in as many books, yet no one doubts my existence.

1)Nobody doubts your existence because your birth was documented on the day you were born, not 70 years after the fact

2)Tacitus never once says the words "Jesus of Nazareth"; he only makes reference to "Christus" the savior of the Christians, and his "testimony" was written after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, while the Jesus myth was just gaining prevalence. He wouldn't have known to name the "Christus" Jesus because the first gospel had not been written yet and the name Jesus hasn't been invented. There is a general consensus in the historical community that Tacitus lacks sufficient independent testimony to be considered a record of Jesus.

3) Paul also never mentions the name Jesus for the same reason

4) I understand that the New Testament is comprises of multiple sources, but the key thing missing is an eyewitness account. One would think that with all the miraculous/controversial events mentioned, at least one renowned historian of the time would document something while it was happening. It didn't take 40 years after the death of MLK for people to know his name.

 

[BSM1]

Catfish have fins. And they're FABULOUS!

But not scales. I agree with you . Soak them in buttermilk and fry. Yumm...

 

[sojourner]

1)Nobody doubts your existence because your birth was documented on the day you were born, not 70 years after the fact

2)Tacitus never once says the words "Jesus of Nazareth"; he only makes reference to "Christus" the savior of the Christians, and his "testimony" was written after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, while the Jesus myth was just gaining prevalence. He wouldn't have known to name the "Christus" Jesus because the first gospel had not been written yet and the name Jesus hasn't been invented. There is a general consensus in the historical community that Tacitus lacks sufficient independent testimony to be considered a record of Jesus.

3) Paul also never mentions the name Jesus for the same reason

4) I understand that the New Testament is comprises of multiple sources, but the key thing missing is an eyewitness account. One would think that with all the miraculous/controversial events mentioned, at least one renowned historian of the time would document something while it was happening. It didn't take 40 years after the death of MLK for people to know his name.

1) Nobody's birth was documented back then, except for royalty -- and maybe not even then.
2) So? "Jesus of Nazareth" wouldn't be correct, at any rate. You'e incorrect. Tacitus is considered by experts to be valid enough to make Jesus' existence at least fairly certain.
3) Again: So?
4) The source material for Thomas is very early -- and likely by eyewitnesses. So is the Q material in the synoptics. You're putting up a red herring here. You're ascribing modern cultural practices to an ancient culture. NOTHING was documented, unless it was royal decree. Most people were illiterate. Most writing was done on clay tablets, and those would have been scraped clean shortly after. Only imperial documents were put on vellum. Why on earth would Roman authorities write something down about a minor insurrectionist in a minor, outlying Roman province? The fact that we have writings at all is very, very significant.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Wells suggests that Tacitus "was merely repeating what Christians were then saying" [Well.WhoW, 20]; "was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was a recent religion, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults," [Well.HistEv, 17; Well.JesL, 42] and "(t)he context of Tacitus' remarks itself suggests that he relied on Christian informants."

"Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value."

"There are serious problems with Tacitus' account concerning the historicity of Jesus. Roman imperial documents would never refer to Jesus by his Christian title as 'Christ' and Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. This has led many scholars to conclude that the passage is a later Christian interpolation, inserted to provide validity to their fledgling movement. Unlike Josephus however, no real evidence exists to suggest literal textual tampering, so this has become a controversial position to take and others like Robertson, prefer to say that Tacitus was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians. Considering the inaccuracy in the passage, the latter is just as valid an explanation as the interpolation suggestion. Either way it puts us no closer to the historicity of Jesus because by the end of the first century the passion narrative, as told by Paul, was already well known."
- James Still, "Biblical and Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus"

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

And as far as Jesus not being named Jesus, what did they call him? His name certainly wasn't Christ

 

[sojourner]

Wells suggests that Tacitus "was merely repeating what Christians were then saying" [Well.WhoW, 20]; "was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was a recent religion, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults," [Well.HistEv, 17; Well.JesL, 42] and "(t)he context of Tacitus' remarks itself suggests that he relied on Christian informants."

"Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value."

"There are serious problems with Tacitus' account concerning the historicity of Jesus. Roman imperial documents would never refer to Jesus by his Christian title as 'Christ' and Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. This has led many scholars to conclude that the passage is a later Christian interpolation, inserted to provide validity to their fledgling movement. Unlike Josephus however, no real evidence exists to suggest literal textual tampering, so this has become a controversial position to take and others like Robertson, prefer to say that Tacitus was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians. Considering the inaccuracy in the passage, the latter is just as valid an explanation as the interpolation suggestion. Either way it puts us no closer to the historicity of Jesus because by the end of the first century the passion narrative, as told by Paul, was already well known."
- James Still, "Biblical and Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus"

This narration has long attracted scholarly interest because it is a rare non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. Almost all scholars consider these references to the Christians to be authentic.

This from Wikipedia, quoted by Rob't. Van Voorst, in his book, Jesus Outside the New Testament (Eerdman's 2000).

In Jesus Outside the New Testament (2000), Van Voorst starts by outlining the history of research into non-Biblical sources for the historical Jesus and its relation to the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist, which he notes is generally rejected by modern scholars. He goes on to consider references to Jesus in classical writings, Jewish writings, hypothetical sources of the canonical Gospels, and extant Christian writings outside the New Testament. The book includes translations of key passages discussed, including the entire Gospel of Thomas. Van Voorst concludes that non-Christian sources provide "a small but certain corroboration of certain New Testament historical traditions on the family background, time of life, ministry, and death of Jesus", as well as "evidence of the content of Christian preaching that is independent of the New Testament", while non-biblical Christian sources give access to "some important information about the earliest traditions on Jesus". However, New Testament sources remain central for "both the main lines and the details about Jesus' life and teaching".

(Wikipedia)

 

[Ken Brown]

So you will go away unconvinced? You will turn aside the testimony of your peers -- some of whom are learned in biblical scholarship -- in favor of your own interpretation of ancient writings, which were never intended to be law for the Gentile? What did the early church do, before they had a bible? They listened to the testimony of the learned among them. But you will not do the same?

Amazing.

Hi sojourner, the only peers I have are those who have buried their dead thoughts and teachings, and have risen up INTO the ONLY One who is Living. And here is another correction just for you concerning your lack of knowing the Scriptures, and the fact that the "early," One True Church was well versed in them:

Mat_21:42 Yeshua saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is Yahweh's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Mat_22:29 Yeshau answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of Elohim.

Mat_26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Mat_26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Luk_24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luk_24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luk_24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Act_17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Act_17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Act_18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Act_18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Yeshua was Messiah.

Rom_1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

Rom_15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Rom_16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting Elohim, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

1Co_15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Messiah died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Co_15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua.

2Pe_3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You see sojourner, you are not my peer, if you were, you would not "wrest" the Holy Scriptures as you let your teachings do. KB

 

[Curious George]

Hi sojourner, the only peers I have are those who have buried their dead thoughts and teachings, and have risen up INTO the ONLY One who is Living. And here is another correction just for you concerning your lack of knowing the Scriptures, and the fact that the "early," One True Church was well versed in them:

Mat_21:42 Yeshua saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is Yahweh's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Mat_22:29 Yeshau answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of Elohim.

Mat_26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Mat_26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Luk_24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luk_24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luk_24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Act_17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Act_17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Act_18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Act_18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Yeshua was Messiah.

Rom_1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

Rom_15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Rom_16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting Elohim, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

1Co_15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Messiah died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Co_15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua.

2Pe_3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You see sojourner, you are not my peer, if you were, you would not "wrest" the Holy Scriptures as you let your teachings do. KB

And what does a child know of sexual orientation and linguistics and that which has been mutilated, distorted, and edited within the Bible in it's various forms? Nothing. But ask what a child might know of love?

You are correct that sojourner is not your peer, but you are mistaken in the hierarchy.

 

[Ken Brown]

And what does a child know of sexual orientation and linguistics and that which has been mutilated, distorted, and edited within the Bible in it's various forms? Nothing. But ask what a child might know of love?

You are correct that sojourner is not your peer, but you are mistaken in the hierarchy.

Hi Curious George, you should have looked at this Scripture a little closer:

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua.

From a CHILD, Timothy KNEW the Holy Scriptures, and I am certain that he KNEW from those Holy Scriptures that the sexual orientation of men having sex with men, was abominable, that is, if he did not "wrest" those Holy Scriptures. KB

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Law is Defined as Love, the Scripture is the source of the Law. Both Jesus and Paul(regardless all the stuff you can say about him), say that the Law can be defined as Love.

 

[Curious George]

Hi Curious George, you should have looked at this Scripture a little closer:

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua.

From a CHILD, Timothy KNEW the Holy Scriptures, and I am certain that he KNEW from those Holy Scriptures that the sexual orientation of men having sex with men, was abominable, that is, if he did not "wrest" those Holy Scriptures. KB

A child in an era where there was no such thing as sexual orientation, and the scriptures have been distorted from the moment they were written. Again how would a child have any idea about sexual orientation. Yet, that child would understand love and the love that was communicated by the Bible. The child would not wrest with concepts such as sexual orientation, rather the wisdom of the child would be to see the simple message of love.

Sorry you still do not rise to sojourner status. But there have been plenty of other threads discussing this in detail and some of those fellas have studies the Bible pretty well. you should search them and read them with an open mind. Maybe you will learn something. But if you keep reading the Bible from your own perspective, you will become an expert on how the Bible applies to your life. Sorry, that my insinuating you have no grounds to judge others according to your Bible doesn't jive with your philosophy.

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner, the only peers I have are those who have buried their dead thoughts and teachings, and have risen up INTO the ONLY One who is Living. And here is another correction just for you concerning your lack of knowing the Scriptures, and the fact that the "early," One True Church was well versed in them:

Mat_21:42 Yeshua saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is Yahweh's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Mat_22:29 Yeshau answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of Elohim.

Mat_26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Mat_26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Luk_24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luk_24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luk_24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Act_17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Act_17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Act_18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Act_18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Yeshua was Messiah.

Rom_1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

Rom_15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Rom_16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting Elohim, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

1Co_15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Messiah died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Co_15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua.

2Pe_3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You see sojourner, you are not my peer, if you were, you would not "wrest" the Holy Scriptures as you let your teachings do. KB

1) When the NT mentions "scriptures," they aren't talking about the NT.
2) Most of the NT deals with Gentile Christians, who are not bound to Jewish Law.

You are correct. I am not your peer. Your hubris in your first and last sentences betrays your true position. One has to wonder if you'd even humble yourself to sit at the feet of Yeshua and learn...

 

[sojourner]

Hi Curious George, you should have looked at this Scripture a little closer:

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yeshua.

From a CHILD, Timothy KNEW the Holy Scriptures, and I am certain that he KNEW from those Holy Scriptures that the sexual orientation of men having sex with men, was abominable, that is, if he did not "wrest" those Holy Scriptures. KB

Your certainty is your downfall here. If Timothy "KNEW the Holy Scriptures," he would have known that neither he, nor any other Gentile Xtian, was subject to Jewish Law.

 

[Ken Brown]

Your certainty is your downfall here. If Timothy "KNEW the Holy Scriptures," he would have known that neither he, nor any other Gentile Xtian, was subject to Jewish Law.

Hi sojourner, why was Timothy circumcised, and Titus not? They both had Greek fathers didn't they? And please answer, WHY would Timothy "from his youth" learn from or KNOW the Holy Scriptures if he was not subject to Jewish Law? It appears your understanding is very limited when it comes to understanding what is written in the Holy Scriptures sojourner. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

1) When the NT mentions "scriptures," they aren't talking about the NT.
2) Most of the NT deals with Gentile Christians, who are not bound to Jewish Law.

You are correct. I am not your peer. Your hubris in your first and last sentences betrays your true position. One has to wonder if you'd even humble yourself to sit at the feet of Yeshua and learn...

Hi sojourner, maybe your memory is failing you? I suppose I should remind you:

Originally Posted by sojourner
What did the early church do, before they had a bible? They listened to the testimony of the learned among them.

Your statement above tries to indicate there were no Scriptures used by the EARLY church, that they used scholarly teachers testifying with their "wise" sayings, instead of having a WRITTEN Word to go by. And, you accused me of using the "Bible," instead of "listening" to those whom you think are more qualified than myself:

Originally Posted by sojourner
You will turn aside the testimony of your peers -- some of whom are learned in biblical scholarship -- in favor of your own interpretation of ancient writings, which were never intended to be law for the Gentile? What did the early church do, before they had a bible? They listened to the testimony of the learned among them. But you will not do the same?

So I was just correcting the misinformation you were giving about how the EARLY Church didn't use the Ancient Writings. They STOOD firmly upon those Ancient Writings, the Holy Scriptures, but apparently, you do not. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

A child in an era where there was no such thing as sexual orientation, and the scriptures have been distorted from the moment they were written. Again how would a child have any idea about sexual orientation. Yet, that child would understand love and the love that was communicated by the Bible. The child would not wrest with concepts such as sexual orientation, rather the wisdom of the child would be to see the simple message of love.

Sorry you still do not rise to sojourner status. But there have been plenty of other threads discussing this in detail and some of those fellas have studies the Bible pretty well. you should search them and read them with an open mind. Maybe you will learn something. But if you keep reading the Bible from your own perspective, you will become an expert on how the Bible applies to your life. Sorry, that my insinuating you have no grounds to judge others according to your Bible doesn't jive with your philosophy.

Hi Curious George, I'm not sure you fully understood my point. The term "sexual orientation" was used by me to help YOU understand my point. Timothy would have KNOWN for a certainty that men having sex with men was an abomination, because he had the Holy Scriptures since his youth. Timothy would have known that the "sexual orientation" of Urophilia, or Necrophilia would also be an abomination according to the Holy Scriptures that he had KNOWN since his youth, but he would not have necessarily know the term "sexual orientation" when speaking of those abominable acts. It's pretty simple, some have abominable "sexual orientations," which are clearly shown to be so by the Holy Scriptures, unless one "wrest" those Scriptures to mean something that they shouldn't. KB

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner, why was Timothy circumcised, and Titus not? They both had Greek fathers didn't they? And please answer, WHY would Timothy "from his youth" learn from or KNOW the Holy Scriptures if he was not subject to Jewish Law? It appears your understanding is very limited when it comes to understanding what is written in the Holy Scriptures sojourner. KB

Timothy's mother was Jewish. His father was Greek. Timothy was not circumcised, until Paul insisted, so that Timothy would be acceptable to the Jewish community he would be evangelizing. He was reared with the Law because his mother was Jewish. He remained uncircumcised until adulthood, because, as a Greek, he was not bound to Jewish Law.

It appears your understanding is very limited when it comes to understanding the history and circumstances behind what is written in the Holy Scriptures, Ken.

 

[sojourner]

Your statement above tries to indicate there were no Scriptures used by the EARLY church, that they used scholarly teachers testifying with their "wise" sayings, instead of having a WRITTEN Word to go by. And, you accused me of using the "Bible," instead of "listening" to those whom you think are more qualified than myself:

No, my statement clearly says there was no bible used by the early Christians, because the bible didn't exist. Why do you think that Paul wrote letters, and the gospelers wrote narratives? They weren't "writing scripture." They were communicating their teachings to their peers. The early Church listened to Paul, going so far as to canonize his letters.

Another epic fail on your part. You should give up while your attempts at discrediting me are only mildly embarrassing for you.

 

[Ken Brown]

No, my statement clearly says there was no bible used by the early Christians, because the bible didn't exist. Why do you think that Paul wrote letters, and the gospelers wrote narratives? They weren't "writing scripture." They were communicating their teachings to their peers. The early Church listened to Paul, going so far as to canonize his letters.

Another epic fail on your part. You should give up while your attempts at discrediting me are only mildly embarrassing for you.

Hi sojourner, it's really not as difficult as you think it is. You truly tried to indicate that the EARLY church did not go by any writings, and no matter how you try to twist your way out of it, that will not change. You should re-read what Paul says concerning what his manner and teaching methods were:

Act_17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Act 26:22
(22) Having therefore obtained help of Elohim, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

Paul's manner was to reason from the Holy Scriptures, and say nothing more than what those Holy Scriptures said would happen. At my last viewing, the Old Testament Scriptures Paul was referring to is in the BIBLE, or do you only use a NT bible? KB

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner, it's really not as difficult as you think it is. You truly tried to indicate that the EARLY church did not go by any writings, and no matter how you try to twist your way out of it, that will not change. You should re-read what Paul says concerning what his manner and teaching methods were:

Act_17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

No, Ken, it really isn't as difficult as you're making it. Paul (a peer, not a scriptural text) reasoned with them the scriptures. That's what we've been trying to do with you, and that, O Best Beloved, was my point. You insist that you don't need peers to tell you what the texts say. But apparently, Paul's contemporaries did need that.

At my last viewing, the Old Testament Scriptures Paul was referring to is in the BIBLE, or do you only use a NT bible?

But they are not "the bible," are they? They (at that time) were individual texts, rolled into scrolls. "The bible" is a definitive and canonized collection that simply did not exist at that time.