Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Love the sinner and not the sin. If you cannot, then the problem is in your own lap. It is not about treating people like people. It is about accepting sin as fully equal with the divinely inspired institution of marriage, and without ramifications. People, businesses, and communities are being forced to accept a very questionable behavior pattern as totally normal --- even a good and beautiful thing worthy of God's blessing. Sorry, there are many reasons I am not Roman Catholic and I didn't reject that particular religious persuasion yesterday.not to mention that atheists use it to attack Christians.......This thread is a perfect example of how "so called" christians use the bible to promote their twisted perceptions. The bible has been used to promote killings of Muslims and Jews. The Catholics used it to justify the Inquisitions, to burn people at the stake that didn't subscribe to the Catholic dogma. Hitler used the bible to promote the Third Reich. The evangelicals use it to promote the damnation of all that don't subscribe to their dogma. Olsteen uses the bible to promote his greed. There is not one Christian religion that promotes the truth, they promote their own self interest.
If the pope can accept gays, why do you have such a problem? It is not about attacking, or about atheists, it is about treating them like people. Love them as god and Jesus.
If you can't do that then the problem is you.
This thread is a perfect example of how "so called" christians use the bible to promote their twisted perceptions. The bible has been used to promote killings of Muslims and Jews. The Catholics used it to justify the Inquisitions, to burn people at the stake that didn't subscribe to the Catholic dogma. Hitler used the bible to promote the Third Reich. The evangelicals use it to promote the damnation of all that don't subscribe to their dogma. Olsteen uses the bible to promote his greed. There is not one Christian religion that promotes the truth, they promote their own self interest.
As Gandhi said, " Dear God, I love your Jesus, but his followers are insane."
pretending I haven't may qualify......Oh, you poor dear. Pointing out your failure to present a coherent argument is not attacking.not to mention that atheists use it to attack Christians.......This thread is a perfect example of how "so called" christians use the bible to promote their twisted perceptions. The bible has been used to promote killings of Muslims and Jews. The Catholics used it to justify the Inquisitions, to burn people at the stake that didn't subscribe to the Catholic dogma. Hitler used the bible to promote the Third Reich. The evangelicals use it to promote the damnation of all that don't subscribe to their dogma. Olsteen uses the bible to promote his greed. There is not one Christian religion that promotes the truth, they promote their own self interest.
Little nipper please do your research, there's plenty of pics of that era showing Bishops, Cardinals, and Pope hailing the evil one and shaking his hand as well as other higher ups. The synods a decrees of the church were exactly imitated by the Nazis, to much to list here.
????.....why on earth did you claim I don't accept gays....back in the 90s I sold half of a company I owned to a gay couple and worked with them as a partner for four years......then they bought the rest of the company and I still serve as their lawyer.....do you think they believe I do not accept them?........not to mention that atheists use it to attack Christians.......This thread is a perfect example of how "so called" christians use the bible to promote their twisted perceptions. The bible has been used to promote killings of Muslims and Jews. The Catholics used it to justify the Inquisitions, to burn people at the stake that didn't subscribe to the Catholic dogma. Hitler used the bible to promote the Third Reich. The evangelicals use it to promote the damnation of all that don't subscribe to their dogma. Olsteen uses the bible to promote his greed. There is not one Christian religion that promotes the truth, they promote their own self interest.
If the pope can accept gays, why do you have such a problem? It is not about attacking, or about atheists, it is about treating them like people. Love them as god and Jesus.
If you can't do that then the problem is you.
Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
Let me guess you lean right? Because righties always seem to not get the most clever and brightest and sharpest and welspoken usmb members.Is Delta 4 Embassy a fucking asshole?
Probably
Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
Paulinism
that first marriage did not work out well.Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
Paulinism
- Jesus is never quoted in the New Testament as having directly addressed rape, incest, domestic violence or homosexual behavior. So are we supposed to believe all these practices are okay with Him? Read on....
- Gospel writer and apostle John tells us there are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in their New Testament accounts (John 21:25).
- Christ is quoted at one point that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.
- When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Old Testament law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people that not only the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts (Matthew 5:28). And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.
- Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as dramatic examples of God’s wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.
- Most important of all, Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, Emmanuel (which means "God with us"). This was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9:18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning of creation (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere).
It's mind boggling that so many right wing evangelicals take the word of a persecutor of Christians as an apostle. His writings were the promotion of his own desire to be famous, not unlike many of todays evangelists. Like the one that just asked for $65 million for his own jet.that first marriage did not work out well.Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
Paulinism
- Jesus is never quoted in the New Testament as having directly addressed rape, incest, domestic violence or homosexual behavior. So are we supposed to believe all these practices are okay with Him? Read on....
- Gospel writer and apostle John tells us there are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in their New Testament accounts (John 21:25).
- Christ is quoted at one point that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.
- When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Old Testament law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people that not only the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts (Matthew 5:28). And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.
- Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as dramatic examples of God’s wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.
- Most important of all, Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, Emmanuel (which means "God with us"). This was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9:18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning of creation (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere).
gospels were written many years later and not by those who's names are used. They are works of men who take the word of mouth stories from others.
Perhaps Thomas is the closest to what Jesus might have said at the time. The "facts" of the gospel that were picked out of the hundred or so other books are inaccurate. How much is the rest really true? There are more truths to Christianity that just the NT.
It's mind boggling that so many right wing evangelicals take the word of a persecutor of Christians as an apostle. His writings were the promotion of his own desire to be famous, not unlike many of todays evangelists. Like the one that just asked for $65 million for his own jet.that first marriage did not work out well.Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
Paulinism
- Jesus is never quoted in the New Testament as having directly addressed rape, incest, domestic violence or homosexual behavior. So are we supposed to believe all these practices are okay with Him? Read on....
- Gospel writer and apostle John tells us there are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in their New Testament accounts (John 21:25).
- Christ is quoted at one point that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.
- When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Old Testament law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people that not only the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts (Matthew 5:28). And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.
- Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as dramatic examples of God’s wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.
- Most important of all, Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, Emmanuel (which means "God with us"). This was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9:18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning of creation (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere).
gospels were written many years later and not by those who's names are used. They are works of men who take the word of mouth stories from others.
Perhaps Thomas is the closest to what Jesus might have said at the time. The "facts" of the gospel that were picked out of the hundred or so other books are inaccurate. How much is the rest really true? There are more truths to Christianity that just the NT.
still waiting for an answer to my question......profit vs prophet
It's mind boggling that so many right wing evangelicals take the word of a persecutor of Christians as an apostle. His writings were the promotion of his own desire to be famous, not unlike many of todays evangelists. Like the one that just asked for $65 million for his own jet.that first marriage did not work out well.Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
Paulinism
- Jesus is never quoted in the New Testament as having directly addressed rape, incest, domestic violence or homosexual behavior. So are we supposed to believe all these practices are okay with Him? Read on....
- Gospel writer and apostle John tells us there are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in their New Testament accounts (John 21:25).
- Christ is quoted at one point that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.
- When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Old Testament law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people that not only the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts (Matthew 5:28). And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.
- Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as dramatic examples of God’s wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.
- Most important of all, Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, Emmanuel (which means "God with us"). This was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9:18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning of creation (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere).
gospels were written many years later and not by those who's names are used. They are works of men who take the word of mouth stories from others.
Perhaps Thomas is the closest to what Jesus might have said at the time. The "facts" of the gospel that were picked out of the hundred or so other books are inaccurate. How much is the rest really true? There are more truths to Christianity that just the NT.
