Why can these Bible teachings and commands be ignored while others can not?

[Wormwood]

Hi Wormwood. Please show me exactly where I 'claimed' I was here only for answers. I never said anything of the sort. The original question on this post is meant to highlight the fact that many churches ignore the sin of adultery and do not follow the teachings on women, and yet use the same verse on adultery to clobber gay people with. It says on my profile explicitly that I came here to share Scripture and history that is not often seen. I am a born again Christian, born in blood, and have shared with you the denomination of the congregation I attend, which is the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which has 4 million members and 10,000 congregations. Are you insinuating that all my fellow congregants are not Christian as well?

Aaron, I said your actions were unbecoming of a Christian...which is what you claim to be. You said you wanted people to "educate you" about a seeming inconsistency in approach to different sins in the church. I assumed you were seeking information honestly. Was I wrong?

Taking anyone intentionally out of context is lying. Period. I never made any statement about the Lutheran denomination. No one is a Christian by association. We are known by our fruits and misrepresenting church history and quotes from early Christians is not the kind of thing one would expect from a brother in Christ. That is all I am saying.

Are these quotes out of context as well?

"In the person whose mind is sound there is no need to learn letters." -St Anthony

"It should be enough for you to know that there is a good shepherd who gave his soul for his sheep ... How big God is, what His limits are, and of what essence ... such questions are dangerous ... they shall be taken care of with silence." – St Basil

"Let us Christians prefer the simplicity of our faith to the demonstrations of human reason ... For to spend much time on research about the essence of things would not serve the edification of the Church." – St Basil.

"All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire." -- Emperor Theodosius

First, you provided no source for these quotes so they are difficult to track down and determine the context. I did not bother to do all that research. The two quotes I did look up were blatantly misrepresented...that told me all I needed to know about the trustworthiness of these citations and how you were representing them.
Second, the first quote has nothing to do with validating deceitfulness. It is simply a comment about formal education (so it seems, hard to tell with no context). The second quote seems to be more in reference to issues related to the nature and persons of God that the early church debated. I don't see how this is a reference to intentional deceit about homosexuality or history in general. The third quote seems in line with the second. It would seem these quotes are related to complex issues regarding the ousia of God and how to delineate his nature and persons....rather than claiming that we ought not focus on actual history or something of that nature, as you seem to be implying. Context makes all the difference here. Emperor Theodosus was not even born until after many of the councils you cited. I thought these quotes were supposed to reflect something about the early church's view on homosexuality between 0-300AD!

In any event, two things are evident. First, is you lied (apparently knowingly since you have studied Christian history for 20 years) that there was evidence that the early church accepted homosexuality and performed gay marriages from 0-300AD. Second, when I gave you a host of quotes from early Christians denouncing homosexuality. Your only response has been to list a bunch of quotes from early church people that implied they liked to lie. At least two of these quotes seem to be blatantly misrepresented in order to deceive people about what these Christians taught (and the other quotes seem completely unrelated). So, not only have you provided zero evidence for your point, you have lied about what early church leaders taught in order to discredit them! In doing so you have only discredited yourself and have shown that you are driven by an agenda and the facts for you are irrelevant.

That said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on these issues. Since it became obvious quite awhile ago that we are not going to agree with each other on these issues or on our understanding of history, I don't understand why you keep coming on this thread I started when you expressly told me that no one here is required to agree with you, or what 'your' particular church teaches.

Yes, I am fine with agreeing to disagree. What I am not fine with is lying and intentionally deceiving people on this site. I do not demand everyone agrees with me. What I do expect (and all Christians should) is honesty. Quit trying to paint this as me bullying you. You are the one using history and quotes to prove your point...which has shown so far to be untrue. I have simply tried to examine your historical evidence...which is both lacking and seemingly intentionally distorted.

 

[Aaron Lindahl]

Yes, I am fine with agreeing to disagree. What I am not fine with is lying and intentionally deceiving people on this site. I do not demand everyone agrees with me. What I do expect (and all Christians should) is honesty. Quit trying to paint this as me bullying you. You are the only trying to use quotes and historical data about the early church embracing homosexuality to prove your point. I have simply tried to examine your evidence...which is both lacking and seemingly intentionally distorted.

Hi Wormwood, there is no lying going on here by myself. I'm sorry if you mistakenly believe so, but it's obvious we're worlds apart in both our historical interests and religious views. I've shared history on this subject as Classical history is taught in most secular universities. I also shared the many quotes by famous Roman people showing that same-sex marriage was common and legal for many hundreds of years, and made a point that the Church did make any rules on the subject of homosexuality until 305.

As to the early Church fathers, it's not surprising that bishops who would instruct their emperors to have gay people burned alive in public or to seize all writings that might make them look bad, or that disagree with their beliefs, and have those writings burned as well, are probably not the most honest of people regarding this subject.

390 – Under advice from their bishops, Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.


Emperor Theodosius, under advice of his bishop: "All writings which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire."


That said, if you Google the following, you will find much that corroborates what I have shared here and much more on this subject:

Yale Law School
Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository
Faculty Scholarship Series Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
1-1-1993
A History of Same Sex Marriage
William N. Eskridge Jr.
Yale Law School

Regardless, since we obviously disagree on so many theological subjects, including history, and are not ever going to agree on them, I think that further discussion between us on these topics would not be beneficial or edifying. We can at the very least agree that Jesus Christ is our Savior and that we are saved through Him.

 

[Wormwood]

Hi Wormwood, there is no lying going on here by myself. I'm sorry if you mistakenly believe so, but it's obvious we're worlds apart in both our historical interests and religious views. I've shared history on this subject as Classical history is taught in most secular universities. I also shared the many quotes by famous Roman people showing that same-sex marriage was common and legal for many hundreds of years, and made a point that the Church did make any rules on the subject of homosexuality until 305.

For the sake of clarity, Aaron, you said: "Most importantly, for the first 300 years of Christianity, gay people were allowed to marry each other and were openly welcomed into the Church. It was not until 305 that they began to be stigmatized, not until 342 that they suddenly were denied marriage, and not until 390 that Christians started burning them alive in public."
Clearly, you were trying to claim that the church "openly welcomed" homosexuality and gay marriage in the early church. This is simply not true. You have provided no sources to validate this and when I provided numerous quotes to the contrary, you used distorted quotes to insinuate that the early church was full of liars. Are you not going to admit that those quotes were not in context and did not imply what you were claiming? Did you not know they were being misused? I can only assume this was blatant as you claimed to have studied church history for 20 years. Perhaps you just didn't research the quotes and were unknowingly misquoting people, but I can only assume that wouldn't be the case based on your claims. So yes, when someone misuses a quote to imply something that is the opposite of what the context teaches..that is a lie. It is also a lie to say the early church performed same-sex marriages. You cant just say something is historical without any proof. That is just making things up...aka...telling an untruth/lie. If you are going to use dates and claim your comments are verified by historical data, then I expect that to be the case. If it is not, you are lying...plain and simple.

As to the early Church fathers, it's not surprising that bishops who would instruct their emperors to have gay people burned alive in public or to seize all writings that might make them look bad, or that disagree with their beliefs, and have those writings burned as well, are probably not the most honest of people regarding this subject.

Well, Aaron, if you believe that there was lots of literature about the church embracing homosexuality at one time that was all burnt up by an early Emperor, fine. However, you have no proof of that, so this is simply a personal belief...not a historical fact. It is fine with me if you believe such a thing. However, when you start writing as if you have actual evidence of such a thing or there is proof the early church performed gay marriages...when there is none, that is misleading to say the least.

Emperor Theodosius, under advice of his bishop: "All writings which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire."

This had to do with the destruction of paganism, not writings about the early church's views on homosexuality. Again, you are implying that writings about homosexuality being embraced by the early church were part of this destruction of early documents. This is historically inaccurate and pure conjecture on your part.

Regardless, since we obviously disagree on so many theological subjects, including history, and are not ever going to agree on them, I think that further discussion between us on these topics would not be beneficial or edifying. We can at the very least agree that Jesus Christ is our Savior and that we are saved through Him.

Aaron, I don't know how someone can disagree on history. Either a document exists that supports your view that the early church embraced homosexuality or it does not. Either we have some writing saying that the early church performed gay marriages or we do not. What I showed were about 4-5 quotes from people that predated 300AD that all denounced homosexuality as wicked behavior. So far you have provided nothing that supports your historical claims so I don't know how we can disagree about something historical when you have yet to provide a single historical document! I'd be happy to consider your view of history if you provided a historical document that at least implied your claim.

I will certainly agree with you that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ.

 

[Aaron Lindahl]

Hi Wormwood, you twisted my words a little, perhaps unintentionally.

Nowhere here did I say 'the Church' performed same-sex marriages, I said:

"The fact that for the first 300 years of Christianity, there is evidence of men marrying each other, and that there was no rejection or persecution of homosexuality shows something went very wrong when the bishops at the time finally gained the ear of an emperor, whose word was law. After all, it had been recognized as 'normal' human behavior for thousands of years at the time Christianity burst onto the scene, and they wouldn't have made many converts if they were going to attack or kill (homosexual) people who the majority at the time found perfectly natural."

I then listed the following irrefutable facts on same-sex marriage prior to a few bishops of the emperor telling him to make it illegal:

[SIZE=10pt]The consensus among modern historians is that republican Rome, like classical Greece, was tolerant of same-sex relationships. Moreover, the Romans accorded some same-sex unions the legal or cultural status of marriages.[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]To take one early example, Cicero, the great Roman lawyer and orator, persuaded Curio the Elder to honor the debts that Curio's son had incurred on behalf of Antonius, to whom the son was, in Cicero's words, "united in a stable and permanent marriage, just as if he had given him a matron's stola." (The stola was garb distinctively reserved for a married Roman woman. "Te a meretricio quaestu abduxit et, tamquam stolam dedisset, in matrimonio stabili et certo collocavit.")[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Cicero's legalistic advice shows that same-sex relationships were not only socially accepted among Roman society, but that they also potentially carried with them legal obligations and consequences, and hence were marriages as we understand the term.[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]Records describing Roman social customs during the imperial period survive in far greater number, at least in part because many, if not most, of the emperors enjoyed well-documented relationships, some of them legally sanctioned marriages-with other men. The evidence suggests that during the same general time frame when companionate long-term marriages were being institutionalized for different-sex couples, they were likewise becoming more common for same-sex couples, who were entering into relationships akin to those discussed in Plato's Symposium.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]By the time of the early Empire the stereotyped roles of [sexually active] "lover" and [sexually passive] "beloved" no longer seem to be the only model for homosexual lovers, and even emperors had publicly acknowledged male husbands or lovers[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]. Many homosexual relationships were permanent and exclusive. Among the lower classes informal unions like that of Giton and Encolpius may have predominated, but marriages between males or between females were legal and familiar among the upper classes.... By the time of the early Empire references to gay marriages are commonplace. The biographer of Elagabalus maintains that after the emperor's marriage to an athlete from Smyrna, any male who wished to advance at the imperial court either had to have a husband or pretend that he did.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Martial and Juvenal both mention same-sex public marriage ceremonies involving the families, dowries, and legal niceties.[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]It is clear that not only aristocrats were involved: a cymbal player is mentioned by Juvenal. Martial points out that both men involved in one ceremony were thoroughly masculine ("The bearded Callistratus married the rugged Afer") and that the marriage took place under the same law that regulated marriage between men and women. Nero married two men in succession, both in public ceremonies with the ritual appropriate to legal marriage. At least one of these unions was recognized by Greeks and Romans, and the spouse was accorded the honors of an empress .... One of the men, Sporus, accompanied Nero to public functions, where the emperor would embrace him affectionately. He remained with Nero throughout his reign and stood by him as he died.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Same-sex unions were noted in popular Roman culture and literature as well. The novel Babylonica, an early version of the pulp romance, had a subplot involving the passion of Egypt's Queen Berenice for the beautiful Mesopotamia, who was snatched from her[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]. After one of the Queen's servants rescued Mesopotamia from her abductors, "'Berenice married Mesopotamia, and there was war between [the abductor] and Berenice on her account.' " Of even greater renown, the Emperor Hadrian's love for Antinous attained the status of legend, acclaimed for generations in sculpture, architecture, painting, coins, and literature.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]The popularity of Hadrian and Antinous as a couple, may have been due in some part to the prevalence of same-sex couples in popular romantic literature of the time.[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]Everywhere in the fiction of the Empire-from lyric poetry to popular novels-gay couples and their love appear on a completely equal footing with their heterosexual counterparts.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]This is what I said about specific new and utterly draconian laws passed on the advice of a few bishops:[/SIZE]

On December 16, 342 AD, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, under advice from their bishops, issued the following edict.. a law specifically outlawing marriages between men, which had previously been legal and allowed, which reads as follows:

"When a man marries in the manner of a woman, a woman about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be guilty, shall be subjected to exquisite punishment." (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Then, 48 years later, Christian emperors Theodosius and Arcadius on Aug 6, 390, under the advice of their bishops, issued the following edict.. an edict that would begin an evil persecution towards gay people that would last well over a thousand years:

"All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman's to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind by being burned to death in the public sight of the people." -Codex Theodosius IX. Vii. 6

I also listed the following persecution of gay people by Christians, beginning in 305, after not persecuting them for hundreds of years:

[SIZE=10pt]305-306 –[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]Council of Elvira (now Granada, Spain). This council was representative of the Western European Church and among other things, it barred homosexuals the right to Communion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]314 –[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]Council of Ancyra (now Ankara, Turkey). This council was representative of the Eastern European Church and it excluded the Sacraments for 15 years to unmarried men under the age of 20 who were caught in homosexual acts, and excluded the man for life if he was married and over the age of 50.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]342 –[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]Under advice from their bishops, the first law against same-sex marriage was promulgated by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]390 –[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]Under advice from their bishops, Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were found guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]498 –[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]In spite of the laws against homosexuality, the Christian emperors hypocritically continued to collect taxes on male prostitutes until the reign of Anastasius I, who finally abolishes the tax.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]529 –[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]The Christian emperor Justinian I (527–565) made homosexuals a public scapegoat for problems such as "famines,earthquakes, and pestilences."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]That stated, yes.... you can put it all down as being only 'my' personal belief that they were welcomed into the Church for the first 300 years, as well as it being the belief of my denomination of 4 million souls and 10,000 congregations, along with all the many other Christian denominations consisting of many millions of souls who believe the same as well.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]I never stated that the writings that were burned specifically defended homosexuality, those are your words, not mine. But then again we will never know since the Church at that time burned ALL writings that disagreed with what they were doing, or that they didn't want people to be able to think about, as they forcibly converted the world around them at the point of a sword.[/SIZE]

"It is decreed that in all places and all cities the [pagan] temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect to punish such crimes."-- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.4.


[SIZE=10pt]Hopefully that clears things up for you. I do have a question for you though. How are you following and living in practice these teachings from Christ when you repeatedly accuse me of being an intentional liar and a 'bad' or fake Christian with ill intent towards people?[/SIZE]


[SIZE=10pt]Matthew 5:22http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Matthew 5.22 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Romans 14:1-13http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Romans 14.1-13 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1 Peter 4:8http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/1 Peter 4.8 [/SIZE]

"Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins."

Romans 12:8

“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.”

[SIZE=10pt]Ephesians 4:2http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Ephesians 4.2 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]“Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Titus 3:2-7http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Titus 3.2-7 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]"To speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Romans 12:16-19http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Romans 12.16-19 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]"Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Romans 12:10http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Romans 12.10 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]“Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1st John 4:7-8http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/1st John 4.7-8 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”

Matthew 22:36-39 [/SIZE]

“Teacher,” he asked, “which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and the most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’"

1 John 4:20

"If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."

John 13:34-35

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

 

[Phoneman777]

Matthew 7 - "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Brother, there is a world of difference between the act of "judging" another with the Biblical mandate that God has given you, me, and everyone else to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort" another (2 Timothy 4:2 KJV), especially a believer where failure to do so is considered in the eyes of God as demonstrating HATRED towards him (Leviticus 19:17 KJV), all of which has nothing to do with "judging". Judging is the act of declaring the condition of another's heart or motive which not one of us, but God alone, is able to do. Therefore, we are wholly unqualified and disqualified to be judge over anyone. However, reproof, rebuke, and exhortation refers to prayerful, seasonal criticism of another's outward behavior that is contrary to the Word of God for the edification of both his soul and the church. Any person who sets himself up in the judgment seat of Christ in place of Christ has effectively become "Anti-Christos", or "in place of Christ".

I believe the reason why we now debate whether to accept as normal what the Bible calls abominable in the eyes of God, including homosexuality, profaning of the sanctity of marriage, etc, is because the church has compromised our own foundational beliefs in order to not be as peculiar in the eyes of the world as God intended us to be.

 

[Aaron Lindahl]

Brother, there is a world of difference between the act of "judging" another with the Biblical mandate that God has given you, me, and everyone else to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort" another (2 Timothy 4:2 KJV), especially a believer (Leviticus 19:17 KJV), all of which has nothing to do with "judging". Judging is the act of declaring the condition of another's heart or their motive which not one of us, but God alone, is able to do. Therefore, we are wholly unqualified and disqualified to be judge over anyone. However, reproof, rebuke, and exhortation refers to prayerful, seasonal criticism of another's outward behavior that is contrary to the Word of God for the edification of both his soul and the church. Any person who sets himself up in the judgment seat of Christ in place of Christ has effectively become "Anti-Christos", or "in place of Christ".

I believe the reason why we now debate whether to accept as normal what was once considered abominable in the eyes of God, including homosexuality, profaning of the sanctity of marriage, etc, is because the church has compromised our own foundational beliefs in order to not be as peculiar in the eyes of the world as God intended us to be.

Hi Phoneman, I understand where you're coming from and the words I have shared with you here from many pastors attempt to do just that... reproof, rebuke, and share prayerful seasonal criticism of churches who ignore many teachings from the Bible to love and not judge, while they take it upon themselves to condemn and reject gay people over how God created them and who they love and wish to marry while strangely enough welcoming people who have committed adultery over and over into their churches, even though adultery is listed within the exact same verse they use to condemn gay people with.

It sounds like adulterers get an extremely convenient free pass from sin and can continue to divorce and re-marry any amount of times they wish, even though the Bible clearly says that adulterers cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Strangely enough, you don't see the teachings on adultery leading to people being beaten, imprisoned, or murdered over, and yet we can see that happening all around the world over the 'teachings' they spread about homosexuality.

That said, we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on which churches have compromised the teachings of Christ on this issue. .

 

[HammerStone]

"The fact that for the first 300 years of Christianity, there is evidence of men marrying each other, and that there was no rejection or persecution of homosexuality shows something went very wrong when the bishops at the time finally gained the ear of an emperor, whose word was law. After all, it had been recognized as 'normal' human behavior for thousands of years at the time Christianity burst onto the scene, and they wouldn't have made many converts if they were going to attack or kill (homosexual) people who the majority at the time found perfectly natural."

Aaron, you have in no way substantiated this claim. Any time you are pressed for evidence, you merely infer this status as a negative statement, and that's not evidence. You're making a claim here that seriously challenges both the traditional and academic histories of the church, so you're going to need to provide more than simple assertion. I don't question that you've studied church history, but I know many who've studied their entire lives and have lived much longer than you and have none of this evidence. If indeed it exists, please present it.

It's a reasonable request that you need to address, otherwise this discussion will go nowhere. Copying and pasting the same statements over and over is unacceptable.

For instance, we have copies of the Didachē from the 2nd century which opines quite expansively on church practice in the period you mention, and yet contains no such references. Now, regardless of stance on the value of church tradition, it's pretty easy to understand that had what you asserted rung true, there would be references in this work or some similar work. I am unaware of that reality. However, I am open to discovery of such, but I need more than the assertions of the member of a forum, regardless of credentials and years devoted to studying.

 

[Aaron Lindahl]

Aaron, you have in no way substantiated this claim. Any time you are pressed for evidence, you merely infer this status as a negative statement, and that's not evidence. You're making a claim here that seriously challenges both the traditional and academic histories of the church, so you're going to need to provide more than simple assertion. I don't question that you've studied church history, but I know many who've studied their entire lives and have lived much longer than you and have none of this evidence. If indeed it exists, please present it.

It's a reasonable request that you need to address, otherwise this discussion will go nowhere. Copying and pasting the same statements over and over is unacceptable.

For instance, we have copies of the Didachē from the 2nd century which opines quite expansively on church practice in the period you mention, and yet contains no such references. Now, regardless of stance on the value of church tradition, it's pretty easy to understand that had what you asserted rung true, there would be references in this work or some similar work. I am unaware of that reality. However, I am open to discovery of such, but I need more than the assertions of the member of a forum, regardless of credentials and years devoted to studying.

Hi HammerStone, I made it very clear that I was not saying the 'Church' was performing same-sex marriages. I stated that same-sex marriage was quite common and accepted by the majority of society for the first 300 years that Christianity existed. I admit that it is merely inference that many Christians at the time would have accepted it as well, and we cannot 'substantiate' it with any particular writing other than Jesus' words to love and accept one another, and how Jesus treated the centurion without mentioning his relationship with the youth, but that is a logical assumption and opinion on my part, on my denomination's part, and on the part of all the other denominations who agree with us. In addition, there are no records of gay people being stigmatized or persecuted by Christians until 305, when they were suddenly denied communion, when that had not been the case for the previous 305 years.. As well, I've stated over and over, very clearly, that I don't expect anyone to have to agree with us on this assumption, or how we practice the Christian faith. I've been assured that no one here would ever be forced to have to agree with anyone else here, and that this is an open debate site for the 'controversial' issues within the Church, which this issue most definitely is.

The intention of this thread is more about addressing what is going on today by churches who ignore many teachings from the Bible while focusing on a few verses that mention homosexual behavior rather than what happened during the past, although of course the past is mentioned to show when the persecution of gay people began. It's not as if I'm going on anyone else's threads here and 'forcing' my opinion of this subject on everyone. If someone chooses to come onto this one thread out of the hundreds of other threads here they could go on, and address me, then I answer them with what I believe to be the truth. That said, does a discussion only 'go anywhere' when a poster is finally 'forced' to agree with the opinions of the moderators here on a particular subject?


You say I have in no way substantiated my claim. How exactly is the following 'not' substantiating my statement that same-sex marriage was allowed and common during the time period mentioned?


[SIZE=10pt]The consensus among modern historians is that republican Rome, like classical Greece, was tolerant of same-sex relationships. Moreover, the Romans accorded some same-sex unions the legal or cultural status of marriages.[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]To take one early example, Cicero, the great Roman lawyer and orator, persuaded Curio the Elder to honor the debts that Curio's son had incurred on behalf of Antonius, to whom the son was, in Cicero's words, "united in a stable and permanent marriage, just as if he had given him a matron's stola." (The stola was garb distinctively reserved for a married Roman woman. "Te a meretricio quaestu abduxit et, tamquam stolam dedisset, in matrimonio stabili et certo collocavit.")[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Cicero's legalistic advice shows that same-sex relationships were not only socially accepted among Roman society, but that they also potentially carried with them legal obligations and consequences, and hence were marriages as we understand the term.[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]Records describing Roman social customs during the imperial period survive in far greater number, at least in part because many, if not most, of the emperors enjoyed well-documented relationships, some of them legally sanctioned marriages-with other men. The evidence suggests that during the same general time frame when companionate long-term marriages were being institutionalized for different-sex couples, they were likewise becoming more common for same-sex couples, who were entering into relationships akin to those discussed in Plato's Symposium.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]By the time of the early Empire the stereotyped roles of [sexually active] "lover" and [sexually passive] "beloved" no longer seem to be the only model for homosexual lovers, and even emperors had publicly acknowledged male husbands or lovers[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]. Many homosexual relationships were permanent and exclusive. Among the lower classes informal unions like that of Giton and Encolpius may have predominated, but marriages between males or between females were legal and familiar among the upper classes.... By the time of the early Empire references to gay marriages are commonplace. The biographer of Elagabalus maintains that after the emperor's marriage to an athlete from Smyrna, any male who wished to advance at the imperial court either had to have a husband or pretend that he did.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Martial and Juvenal both mention same-sex public marriage ceremonies involving the families, dowries, and legal niceties.[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]It is clear that not only aristocrats were involved: a cymbal player is mentioned by Juvenal. Martial points out that both men involved in one ceremony were thoroughly masculine ("The bearded Callistratus married the rugged Afer") and that the marriage took place under the same law that regulated marriage between men and women. Nero married two men in succession, both in public ceremonies with the ritual appropriate to legal marriage. At least one of these unions was recognized by Greeks and Romans, and the spouse was accorded the honors of an empress .... One of the men, Sporus, accompanied Nero to public functions, where the emperor would embrace him affectionately. He remained with Nero throughout his reign and stood by him as he died.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Same-sex unions were noted in popular Roman culture and literature as well. The novel Babylonica, an early version of the pulp romance, had a subplot involving the passion of Egypt's Queen Berenice for the beautiful Mesopotamia, who was snatched from her[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]. After one of the Queen's servants rescued Mesopotamia from her abductors, "'Berenice married Mesopotamia, and there was war between [the abductor] and Berenice on her account.' " Of even greater renown, the Emperor Hadrian's love for Antinous attained the status of legend, acclaimed for generations in sculpture, architecture, painting, coins, and literature.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]The popularity of Hadrian and Antinous as a couple, may have been due in some part to the prevalence of same-sex couples in popular romantic literature of the time.[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]Everywhere in the fiction of the Empire-from lyric poetry to popular novels-gay couples and their love appear on a completely equal footing with their heterosexual counterparts.[/SIZE]

 

[Wormwood]

Aaron, again, for clarity sake you said, "for the first 300 years of Christianity, gay people were allowed to marry each other and were openly welcomed into the Church." (see post #59) The clear implication here is that the early church "allowed" (which implies involvement in these oaths to God...but we don't need to get hung up on semantics) gay marriages to take place and gay couples were "openly welcomed in the church." I have provided numerous quotes from early Christians that clearly claim all forms of homosexual behavior were deemed as unacceptable and corrupt. So, the issue here is not, "Did pagan Romans engage in homosexual acts?" The question is whether or not the church endorsed these behaviors. I have never read of any early document from a church leader stating as much. The fact that pagan cultures and idolatrous nations practiced homosexuality is irrelevant, imho.

 

[Aaron Lindahl]

Aaron, again, for clarity sake you said, "for the first 300 years of Christianity, gay people were allowed to marry each other and were openly welcomed into the Church." The clear implication here is that the early church "allowed" (which implies involvement in these oaths to God...but we don't need to get hung up on semantics) gay marriages to take place and gay couples were "openly welcomed in the church." I have provided numerous quotes from early Christians that clearly claim all forms of homosexual behavior were deemed as unacceptable and corrupt. So, the issue here is not, "Did pagan Romans engage in homosexual acts." The question is whether or not the church endorsed these behaviors. I have never read of any early document from a church leader stating as much. The fact that pagan cultures and idolatrous nations engaged in homosexuality is irrelevant, imho.

Hi Wormwood, I've addressed earlier in this thread in extreme detail that the verses in the Bible in their original Greek and Hebrew do 'not' condemn 'all' forms of homosexuality; they only are sins within a pagan, abusive, or outside of a committed monogamous relationship setting. I've included many excerpts on this thread from religious scholars and pastors who agree.

That is why my entire denomination of 4 million Christians, more and more religious scholars, and many other entire denominations now welcome and accept gay monogamous couples in our congregations, and perform same-gender marriage. It wasn't easy at first to admit that we had been wrong, but this would not have happened unless so many millions of Christians and pastors agreed upon this.

We're just going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on this issue. Thank you and God bless you.

 

[Tess]

Just think of a married couple. Would you say a husband who commits adultery (mortal sin) is still married to / loves / respects his wife? Wouldn't you rather say that he has shipwrecked his marriage? Husbands and wives can get away with many sins against each other as marriage showed a depth of intent. The same is true with God in our salvation / born again experience. James 5:20 is an example of how one action can cover a multitude of sins too. But just as in marriage, so too with God we play with fire when we continue in mortal sin. An affair causes the cheating spouse heart to move on. Likewise with God.

Just to add to Wormwoods post. Have a look at Matt 5. Matt 5:28 says if we just look at a another person with immoral thoughts that we have committed adultery in our heart. Proving that we have all sinned. Now most quote only that scripture on sin. But if we look simply a ferw verses down we see that vs 32 says if anyone divorces except for actual marital affair / sexual immorality....NOT thoughts, not swearing, not stealing..we see context.

Homosexauls are continuing daily in a mortal sin. Calling themselves homosexuals is offensive to any Christian because they are basically calling themselves ''adulterers / sinners'' and proud of it. Now we can / should expect that of the unsaved but NOT the saved as 1 Cor 5:12 clearly explains.

Hi KingJ
Thanks for your response

I understand your example about the husband and wife, although I do take a bit of an issue with it. Obviously if a husband cheats on his wife it will hurt their relationship and if he does so repeatedly the relationship would likely not last. However, we know that God's love is incomparable to human understanding. God will never let go of us regardless of what we do. God welcomes the prodigal son and loves him just as much as the son who had never left. But yes, I get what you're saying.

I can see what you mean about Matt 5:28, and how the distinction of more 'serious' sins are made, thanks for that insight. :)

I still stand by my overall point; that I don't think an agreement is going to be reached on this topic, and that we are saved regardless of our sins.
It is between that individual and God, it is not for us to judge one another.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Hi Michael,

We'll simply have to respectfully agree to disagree that the Biology Department at University of California Riverside, and universities in general, are full of simple and perverse-minded people, that my entire Lutheran denomination consisting of 4 million souls with nearly 10,000 congregations is perverse, and on the naturality of homosexuality among both humans and the animal kingdom.

That said, perhaps you might like to address Tess' question above?

Hello Aaron,
I forgive you for mischaracterizing my previous response with obvious exaggeration, but when a denomination embraces a lie, that becomes a serious problem, though the guilt for such actions will always fall predominantly upon the leadership responsible for choosing error over truth in an effort to make people comfortable with their sin. This is perhaps the greatest problem with denomination in general, that individuals choose to "leave their brains at the door" so to speak, rather than seek diligently to confirm that those things which are taught to them are indeed consistent with the revealed truth of the scripture. I was raised in a church whose creed included a belief that salvation came through the church rather than through the gospel, and that there was only one true church (and they were it.) By that church's thinking, your entire denomination is either apostate or caught up in gross error (don't feel bad. By that same reasoning, so am I and every other believer outside of that denomination.) Now, don't be so foolish as to believe that numbers count for anything with regard to truth. In the days of the prophet Elijah there were far more Baal worshipers in Israel, than faithful worshipers of Yah-hah-vah. Their numbers didn't make them correct, but their faith condemned them and created a need for repentance and restoration. I realize that the analogy to Baal worshippers may be a bit gross, but consider that the northern tribes of Israel, under the leadership of Jeroboam, worshipped the image of a calf as a representation of Yah-hah-vah (in violation of the commandment.) These same tribes were lead into captivity and exile for their rejection of the God of scripture as described by scripture. The acceptance of behaviors which God has called an abomination seems at least as bad as believing that God is a cow.
Also consider that there are literally millions of men and women that are members of the various "Christian" denominations, but Jesus said, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14. "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14 and "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. "When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, `Lord, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you, `I do not know you, where you are from,' "then you will begin to say, `We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.' "But He will say, `I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.' Luke 13:24-27
I'm not suggesting that the denominations are all on their way to hell, but we aren't saved by being a member of a church or denomination, but by receiving the Lord Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel. That may happen within the context of the preaching of the gospel within a service in a denomination, or it may happen on the street by the means of a street preacher, or while driving in your car by the means of the preaching of someone on the radio. Salvation is entirely of the Lord, entirely by the working of His Holy Spirit and through His word, entirely by His election and grace, and through faith in the Son of God, our Lord and Savior, Jesus (called the) Christ.
Now with regard to Tess' question, the bible itself distinguishes some sin as being worse than others: 16. If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. 1 John 5:16-17
I don't believe that this is speaking of "the unpardonable sin," as in the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as that would suggest a rejection of the gospel and this passage addresses a "brother" in sin. However, the law of Moses included a death penalty for many different transgressions and I believe that the Apostle was referring to such types of sin. Again, this isn't saying that such sins are unforgivable, but God requires repentance leading to life rather than living according to the fleshly nature which leads to death. When Christians choose to live a sinful lifestyle the natural result of their choice is death, and we find such examples and such teaching in the book of acts and in the epistles. This is why we have the admonition I used in a previous post: Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

By the way, I don't care if they live and work in Riverside California or Stony Brook New York, a PhD that forces his own predilections upon his study is still a boob unworthy of the title of "scientist".

 

[Aaron Lindahl]

Hi Michael and thank you. However, in my opinion, and in many others, the churches who ignore the many teachings from the Bible to love and not judge, while they take it upon themselves to condemn and reject gay people over how God created them and who they love and wish to marry while most of them at the same time welcome people who have committed adultery over and over into their churches and do not address the issue, even though adultery is listed within the exact same verse they use to condemn gay people with, show their utter moral hypocrisy.

It sounds like adulterers get an extremely convenient free pass from sin and can continue to divorce and re-marry any amount of times they wish, while not being rejected by most churches or families as they do to gay people, even though the Bible clearly says that adulterers cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Strangely enough, you don't see the teachings on adultery leading to people being beaten, imprisoned, or murdered over, and yet we can see that happening all around the world over the 'teachings' they spread about homosexuality.

That said, we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on which denominations and churches are embracing a lie on this issue, especially when the teachings they spread on this issue directly lead to so much despair, anguish, persecution, violence and death.

1 Timothy 4:1-4

"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude.

We can see that happening today from people whose consciences have been totally seared away, and who have no care or feeling whatsoever as to the spiritual and emotional pain and torment they cause gay people with their prejudice and rejection, many times to the point of suicide, or the teachings they spread that today are being used as justification to beat, imprison, and murder gay people in Uganda and many other places around the world. We can see such people today attempting to forbid marriage to gay people as well, just as was prophesied while they reject instead of receiving with gratitude the unique way that God created gay people. It is truly horrific and goes against all teachings of Christ to Love and accept one another as God created us, but the demons are surely delighted by so much hatred, persecution, and murder.

 

[KingJ]

Hi Wormwood, I've addressed earlier in this thread in extreme detail that the verses in the Bible in their original Greek and Hebrew do 'not' condemn 'all' forms of homosexuality; they only are sins within a pagan, abusive, or outside of a committed monogamous relationship setting. I've included many excerpts on this thread from religious scholars and pastors who agree.

That is why my entire denomination of 4 million Christians, more and more religious scholars, and many other entire denominations now welcome and accept gay monogamous couples in our congregations, and perform same-gender marriage. It wasn't easy at first to admit that we had been wrong, but this would not have happened unless so many millions of Christians and pastors agreed upon this.

We're just going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on this issue. Thank you and God bless you.

Agree to disagree??? :blink: . I am worried about you bud. I think you and your 4 million buddies are going to hell.

There are absolutely logical reasons behind every law from God. If we have a brain between our ears we SiMpLy have no excuse. So now the logic behind all homosexual laws (yes....even in the absence of them as Cain never needed to be told about God's law on murder as he had more then a PEANUT between his ears) I would imagine are......

1. How do you justify homosexuality as not SPITTING in your Creator's face...when woman exist? God made a mistake? He should have made you a female?
2-infinity. How do you justify homosexuality as not SPITTING in your Creator's face...when woman exist? God made a mistake? He should have made you a female?

Only hermaphrodites are on the fence here. Are you one? They can escape God's judgment on their choice. You really think God is dumb? You really think God doesn't see your desire to fulfil the lust of your flesh as > your desire to submit to His CrYsTaL cLeAr will for your life and avoid ALL appearance of evil.

You are a fool. I agree to agree on that.

 

[Aaron Lindahl]

Agree to disagree??? :blink: . I am worried about you bud. I think you and your 4 million buddies are going to hell.

There are absolutely logical reasons behind every law from God. If we have a brain between our ears we SiMpLy have no excuse. So now the logic behind all homosexual laws (yes....even in the absence of them as Cain never needed to be told about God's law on murder as he had more then a PEANUT between his ears) I would imagine are......

1. How do you justify homosexuality as not SPITTING in your Creator's face...when woman exist? God made a mistake? He should have made you a female?
2-infinity. How do you justify homosexuality as not SPITTING in your Creator's face...when woman exist? God made a mistake? He should have made you a female?

Only hermaphrodites are on the fence here. Are you one? They can escape God's judgment on their choice. You really think God is dumb? You really think God doesn't see your desire to fulfil the lust of your flesh as > your desire to submit to His CrYsTaL cLeAr will for your life and avoid ALL appearance of evil.

You are a fool. I agree to agree on that.

Hi king, yes, we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree on this issue, and I have no worries about going to hell for Jesus is with me every second of the day, and I am both saved and reborn through Him, just as are my fellow congregants. God bless you.

That said, many Christians today are guilty of being just like the Pharisees, as they use scripture as a weapon and to persecute others, while ignoring every teaching and command that is inconvenient for them to follow. The following teachings describe them well, in addition to the 2nd most important commandment of all Scripture, that they ignore every day while thinking they are condemning those who disagree with their teachings, or who question their actions to hell.

Matthew 5:22

“But I guarantee you, if you are even angry with a brother or sister, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. Whoever calls another believer a fool will answer for it in hell-fire.”

Matthew 22:36-40

“Teacher, what is the most important commandment in the Law?” He replied, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your being, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second most important commandment is like it: You must love your neighbor as you love yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.”

Matthew 23-4

“They (the Pharisees both ancient and modern) crush other people with unbearable religious demands and yet themselves never lift a finger to ease the burden.”

Matthew 18:21-22

“Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven!”

Matthew 23:13

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.”

Matthew 23: 15

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are!”

John 12:46-48

"I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day."

 

[lforrest]

Hi Michael and thank you. However, in my opinion, and in many others, the churches who ignore the many teachings from the Bible to love and not judge, while they take it upon themselves to condemn and reject gay people over how God created them and who they love and wish to marry while most of them at the same time welcome people who have committed adultery over and over into their churches and do not address the issue, even though adultery is listed within the exact same verse they use to condemn gay people with, show their utter moral hypocrisy.

There are verses that show judging is acceptable. If you would care to seek out the truth on the matter please give your attention to the new topic Wormwood has started. http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21058-do-not-judge/

 

[Aaron Lindahl]

There are verses that show judging is acceptable. If you would care to seek out the truth on the matter please give your attention to the new topic Wormwood has started. http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21058-do-not-judge/

Hi lforrest. Thank you for sharing your opinion on these things. That said, king openly called me a 'fool' here in the forum, and so I'm very curious as to your opinion, especially as a moderator entrusted to ensuring politeness, respect, and love to one another on this public Christian forum, regarding this subject:

Do you think that the following Scripture is false, mistranslated in some way, can be ignored, or that you don't agree with its teaching, since you did not address it when it occurred in this forum?

Matthew 5:22

“But I guarantee you, if you are even angry with a brother or sister, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. Whoever calls another believer a fool will answer for it in hell-fire.”

Matthew 5:22 is the twenty-second verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It is the first of what have traditionally been known as the 6 Antitheses. In this one, Jesus compares the current interpretation of "You shall not murder" from the Ten Commandments with his interpretation.

The original Koine Greek, according to Westcott and Hort, reads:

“εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο οργιζομενος τω αδελφω αυτου
ενοχος εσται τη κρισει ος δ αν ειπη τω αδελφω αυτου
ρακα ενοχος εσται τω συνεδριω ος δ αν ειπη μωρε
ενοχος εσται εις την γεενναν του πυρος”

The New Testament in the original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881. It is also known as the Westcott and Hort text, after its editors Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892). Textual scholars use the abbreviation "WH". It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time. The two editors worked together for 28 years.

Westcott and Hort state: "[It is] our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes." They find that without orthographic differences, doubtful textual variants exist only in one sixtieth of the whole New Testament (with most of them being comparatively trivial variations), with the substantial variations forming hardly more than one thousandth of the entire text.

According to Hort, "Knowledge of Documents should precede Final Judgments upon Readings". The two editors favored two manuscripts: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They also believed that the combination of Codex Bezae with the Old Latin and the Old Syriac represents the original form of the New Testament text, especially when it is shorter than other forms of the text, such as the majority of the Byzantine text-type. In this they followed one of the primary principles of their fledgling textual criticism, ‘lectio brevior’, sometimes taken to an extreme, as in the theory of Western non-interpolations, which has since been rejected.

The edition of Westcott and Hort began a new epoch in the history of textual criticism.

All critical editions published after Westcott and Hort closely follow the text of The New Testament in the Original Greek with the exception of the text edited by Hermann von Soden. Soden's edition stands much closer to the text of Tischendorf than to the text of Westcott and Hort. All editions of Nestle-Aland remain close in textual character to the text WH. Aland reports that, while NA25 text shows, for example, 2,047 differences from von Soden, 1,996 from Vogels, 1,268 from Tischendorf, 1,161 from Bover, and 770 from Merk, it contains only 558 differences from WH text.

According to Bruce M. Metzger, "the general validity of their critical principles and procedures is widely acknowledged by scholars today." In 1981 Metzger said:

“The international committee that produced the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration”.

Philip Comfort (who has a [SIZE=11pt]Ph.D., has studied English literature, Greek, and New Testament at the Ohio State University and the University of South Africa. He has taught these classes at a number of colleges, including Wheaton College, Trinity Episcopal Seminary, Columbia International University, and Coastal Carolina University. He is currently senior editor of Bible reference at Tyndale and served as New Testament editor for the New Living Translation. He has contributed a number of books to the Tyndale collection, both as author and editor. Among these are The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, The Origin of the Bible, The Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Essential Guide to Bible Versions, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (with D. Barrett), and Who's Who in Christian History[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]all of which are currently available at Tyndale) [/SIZE]gave this opinion:

The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still to this day, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament. Of course, I think they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable. (...) In many instances where I would disagree with the wording in the Nestle / UBS text in favor of a particular variant reading, I would later check with the Westcott and Hort text and realize that they had often come to the same decision. (...) Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort.

Since the English translation of Matthew 5:22 I shared with you above is so universally acknowledged as being faithful to the original Koine Greek, I am so curious as to why you would not have addressed it when it was transgressed on this very forum to another believer of Christ. Please... tell me your thoughts on this.

Thank you and God bless you.

 

[Wormwood]

Aaron,

I cannot speak for lforrest, but I think its important for you to understand that moderators do not read every comment on this forum. This is why you have the ability to report comments that you feel are abusive. I dont think any of us would disagree with you that name-calling is uncalled for on this site (and I dont know that 5 pages of Greek commentary is necessary to prove the point. :) ). I will leave it to lforrest to address anything else in reference to your discussion with him.

 

[Aaron Lindahl]

Aaron,

I cannot speak for lforrest, but I think its important for you to understand that moderators do not read every comment on this forum. This is why you have the ability to report comments that you feel are abusive. I dont think any of us would disagree with you that name-calling is uncalled for on this site (and I dont know that 5 pages of Greek commentary is necessary to prove the point. :) ). I will leave it to lforrest to address anything else in reference to your discussion with him.

Hi Wormwood, thank you for responding as a moderator devoted to ensuring politeness, respect, fairness, and Christian love on this forum. So, are you saying that now that you're aware of such a transgression as a moderator, surely I don't need to formally 'report it' or leave it up to lforrest to address, correct? I'm assuming of course, that 'all' of you are devoted to ensuring love, respect, and politeness on this forum for 'all' members, without favoring one person who happens to agree with you on a particular subject over another who might not. Or, am I mistaken in some manner for believing that?

That question posed, I ask 'you' to address the same question I asked lforrest about Matthew 5:22... do you find it a verse worthy of ignoring or disagree with it? As to the not really '5' entire pages, but rather only 9 short paragraphs backing up my point that it's an accurate English translation from Greek to English in this case, with no religious scholars disputing its accuracy... I simply like to be thorough. :)

 

[Wormwood]

Aaron,

I encourage you to report every time there is a comment that you feel is inappropriate or abusive. Hopefully, one of us catches it, but reporting it will ensure someone will look into it. You are correct in that we will try to be fair and not show special privilege to those that agree with us on a subject if they are being abusive and inappropriate. I do not disagree that it is inappropriate to call someone a fool. I will allow lforrest to remove the comment or address the individual involved privately based on his take on the situation since he has been involved in the recent conversation whereas I have not really been tracking the discussion. Again, I will remind everyone to be respectful toward one another on this forum. There is no excuse for name-calling or abusive comments.