zoony Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Jesus of Nazareth didn't, however what will soon be cited is that Jesus is the incarnation of the 2nd person of the Trinity and it was God who commanded against homosexuality. but Jesus overturned a lot of old testament dogma, right? declaring all foods clean, how we pray, etc. (just saying we have to be a bit careful with OT dogma, correct?) Anywho, on a separate note I think Jesus was fairly clear in how to approach things. This preacher and several others could learn a thing or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Actually what Jesus over turned was the Pharisee/Sanhedrin's misinterpretations and additions. They had added a list of laws that were well beyond even the mamoth number that were in the Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 ...and the charge was treason. Quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 but Jesus overturned a lot of old testament dogma, right? declaring all foods clean, how we pray, etc. (just saying we have to be a bit careful with OT dogma, correct?) I think over-turn is the wrong word. If anything Jesus was more strict in His call to adherence to the Law, (I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it) the main difference that Jesus had between his contemporaries was that he preached the full measure of God's grace and mercy. Anywho, on a separate note I think Jesus was fairly clear in how to approach things. This preacher and several others could learn a thing or two. I agree here 100%, you know when you're being set up and if you don't then I highly suggest proceeding with grace, mercy and compassion in all that you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Quote? What was written over Jesus' head on the cross? For Roman crucifixion the charge was written above the criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 What was written over Jesus' head on the cross? For Roman crucifixion the charge was written above the criminal. Normally, but pretty sure Pilate legitimately thought Jesus was King of the Jews. He put that there because there was nothing else to put. ....hence the question of 'why do you want me to kill your king?'.... ....and hence the constant 'I find no fault in him'.... Pilate had a notice (or 'title' in most other translations) prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:|sc JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews." Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Normally, but pretty sure Pilate legitimately thought Jesus was King of the Jews. He put that there because there was nothing else to put.....hence the question of 'why do you want me to kill your king?'.... ....and hence the constant 'I find no fault in him'.... There was no king of Israel in the time of Pilate, and if Jesus had established himself as King then he would have been rightly executed for treason. No matter what Pilate says the fact remains that the charge posted above Jesus was a charge of treason, and Pilate was the one who turned him over to be executed, the Pharisees called for it and may have forced his hand but that does not excuse Pilate from his blame and guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 There was no king of Israel in the time of Pilate, and if Jesus had established himself as King then he would have been rightly executed for treason. No matter what Pilate says the fact remains that the charge posted above Jesus was a charge of treason, and Pilate was the one who turned him over to be executed, the Pharisees called for it and may have forced his hand but that does not excuse Pilate from his blame and guilt. No one is excusing Pilate, but you still haven't give a quote showing that was the charge. He was killed because he violated the Jews laws, but they couldn't put him to death.... Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?""If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you." Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled. Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him. But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?" They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!".... Rome didn't charge him with anything.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 No one is excusing Pilate, but you still haven't give a quote showing that was the charge.He was killed because he violated the Jews laws, but they couldn't put him to death.... Rome didn't charge him with anything.... The Romans listed the charge over the head of the crucified when Pilate put King of the Jews over Jesus' head that was the charge and it was done in the three languages common to the region, this is why the Pharisees didn't want that particular charge over Jesus' head, instead they wanted it modified so as to say that Jesus "said he was..." but Pilate was adamant about it remaining "King of the Jews". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 What did Jesus specifically say about the gays? .. Jesus didn't say anything against it because his ministry was primarily to the Jews who already found homosexuality to be abominable because of the Torah. The Jews were much like many Christians today who find it detestable, but often seem to ignore heterosexual immorality such as lust and adultery.However, the Apostle Paul, whose ministry was to the Gentiles did speak about it since homosexuality was more common among Gentiles. Two perfect examples are Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. Romans says that people fall into homosexuality because they either deny God or do not want to be obedient to God. 1 Corinthians basically says that they will not inherit eternal life. Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13). Jesus of Nazareth didn't, however what will soon be cited is that Jesus is the incarnation of the 2nd person of the Trinity and it was God who commanded against homosexuality.Why do you act like that is wrong to admit?Do you deny inspiration and unity in the Scriptures? Or the Trinity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Why do you act like that is wrong to admit? Zguy28, stop while you're ahead...oh wait you're not ahead, instead you're too busy reading what you want into what I write. I have never backed off of the Bible's commands against homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I go looking for a fight for it either...you seem to think that if I'm not being antagonistic about homosexuality then I'm being soft on it when the truth is I'd just rather not be a complete jerk about it. Do you deny inspiration and unity in the Scriptures? Or the Trinity? Get over yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 Zguy28, stop while you're ahead...oh wait you're not ahead, instead you're too busy reading what you want into what I write. I have never backed off of the Bible's commands against homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I go looking for a fight for it either...you seem to think that if I'm not being antagonistic about homosexuality then I'm being soft on it when the truth is I'd just rather not be a complete jerk about it.Get over yourself. OK, I was hoping for a mature response from a church pastor...So, was Paul a complete jerk for pointing it out in 1 Corinthians or Romans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 OK, I was hoping for a mature response from a church pastor... Zguy, I've been around here long enough, and my track record as an orthodox believer has been more than well established, I'm not a n00b here and for you to be asking me these types of questions now after the multitude of theological threads you and I have engaged in seems highly disingenuous, as such your questions don't seem worthy of much of a response. So, was Paul a complete jerk for pointing it out in 1 Corinthians or Romans? LOL, wow, you want to compare the context of Paul writing to Christian churches to a street preacher who feels the need to condemn homosexuals. The major difference is that Paul was talking to the church, this street preacher whom he had established relationships with, this street preacher has no such relationships with the people...so yeah the street preacher was being a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 Zguy, I've been around here long enough, and my track record as an orthodox believer has been more than well established, I'm not a n00b here and for you to be asking me these types of questions now after the multitude of theological threads you and I have engaged in seems highly disingenuous, as such your questions don't seem worthy of much of a response. I know what you believe, but sometimes people change. I felt like you were being ambiguous or deflective with regards to my original question about what Jesus did, which obviously I already knew the answer to, and I knew you did too. But I wasn't sure why you seemed ambiguous, when you are normally known for clarity. I apologize for seeming like I was trying to burn you or something.LOL, wow, you want to compare the context of Paul writing to Christian churches to a street preacher who feels the need to condemn homosexuals. The major difference is that Paul was talking to the church, this street preacher whom he had established relationships with, this street preacher has no such relationships with the people...so yeah the street preacher was being a jerk.And this is one thing I've been trying to point out, the guy did not start condemning homosexuals. They heckled him and asked him specifically if it was a sin. He answered them truthfully. I don't get how you see that as picking a fight with them or being a jerk if he answered forthrightly and honestly from the Scriptures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I know what you believe, but sometimes people change. I felt like you were being ambiguous or deflective with regards to my original question about what Jesus did, which obviously I already knew the answer to, and I knew you did too. But I wasn't sure why you seemed ambiguous, when you are normally known for clarity. I apologize for seeming like I was trying to burn you or something. And this is one thing I've been trying to point out, the guy did not start condemning homosexuals. They heckled him and asked him specifically if it was a sin. He answered them truthfully. I don't get how you see that as picking a fight with them or being a jerk if he answered forthrightly and honestly from the Scriptures? When the Pharisees questioned Jesus trying to trick him he never gave them what they wanted, instead he turned the tables on them, in that he didn't take their bait, this preacher not only took the bait but did so in an antagonistic fashion that is also apparently illegal in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 this preacher not only took the bait but did so in an antagonistic fashion that is also apparently illegal in Scotland. It's debatable whether he was guilty of what he was accused of. And you can argue how much is style was to blame. But the big problem he created was that he chose to plead guilty to the charges, essentially admitting that such his stated Christian views on homosexuality are motivated by homophobia and aggravated by religious prejudice. This places other street preachers in a very difficult position as there is a precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 England is not America. And we aren't socialist Europe but there are enough idiots in charge trying to make us be like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Why even go to a place where guys are comfortable wearing skirts but conservative with bathing, deodorant and cologne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.