Was Jesus 'gay'?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 7/16/2 | Stephen Bennett

[scripter]

One of the fastest growing churches among homosexuals in America and around the world is the Metropolitan Community Church – a "Christian" church specifically for "gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered communities." The MCC was originally started by openly homosexual ex-Baptist minister, Troy Perry, who after the discovery and disclosure of his homosexuality, losing his license as a minister, a divorce and estrangement from his wife and children, as well as a failed suicide attempt, "rediscovered" his rainbow-colored vocation and ministry.

From his Los Angeles living room in 1968, Perry and his initial 12 members began their "gay church." According to their website, in 2003, the MCC will embody over 77,000 members, spanning more than 17 countries around the globe. Tens of thousands of so-called faithful "Christian" homosexual men and women flock weekly to MCC-affiliated churches worldwide to be "reaffirmed" with the message that God loves them and "gay is OK."

The Rev. Troy Perry, highly regarded in gay circles, has been an invited guest to the White House on four separate occasions from 1977 to 1997 – three alone by former President Bill Clinton. In 1997, Clinton "celebrated" Perry as an "honoree" at a White House breakfast recognizing 100 national "spiritual leaders" in America.

I don't know where this new "open and affirming" world would be today without this modern-day homosexual prophet and "gay"-savvy biblical interpreter. According to Perry and the MCC's official website, for over 2,000 years, Christians including myself, have been interpreting the Bible wrong. Maybe you have, too. Did you know:

• The Bible is full of errors, from being copied, recopied and translated over and over again?

• That homosexuality is not a sin in God's eyes – but a twisted teaching of homophobic, misguided infallible men?

• That all "so-called" references to homosexuality in the Bible actually refer to other terms – not homosexuality at all?

• That Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality ... but because the people didn't feed the poor and needy?

• That Jonathan and David are the most famous gay lovers in the Bible – a biblical story of hot, passionate gay romance, kissing, jealousy and sex?

• That Ruth and Naomi (daughter-in-law and mother-in-law) may be the most famous, committed lesbians in the Bible – (Naomi being a possible pederast)?

• That there are undeniably numerous other possible gays and lesbians throughout the Bible who have been "kept in the closet" by homophobic Christians throughout the centuries?

• That Jesus Christ, "God Himself in the flesh," "lived an alternative lifestyle" and the apostle John "the disciple whom Jesus loved" literally could have been his gay male lover and, according to eight other biblical references, Jesus possibly "loved" many other men as well?

• And, finally, that Jesus Christ wore a robe of purple to the cross (a gay adopted color), a possible gay and lesbian connotation – right to His death?

In the immoral days in which we live, homosexual men and women are grasping for every possible straw to get acceptance for their destructive, aberrant lifestyle. The secret gay agenda has infiltrated the media, Hollywood, the public schools, the government and, yes, now even religion. How sad to say homosexuals have gone as far as to try and hijack and pervert biblical Christianity and the Gospel of Jesus Christ – all in the name of "gay sex." And America, we've let it happen.

As a man who once lived as a homosexual, my heart continually breaks for those lost in the web of the "gay" deception – a life of sadness, loneliness, pain and even death. Yet a godly anger within me burns even more for those who have the gall and nerve to try and make my Lord and Saviour, the One who rescued me from the tentacles and grips of the homosexual lifestyle, into the "God of Gay."

It may be a "rainbow day" for these misguided men and women now ... in biblical terms, "the pleasures of sin for a season." I highly doubt that it will be as colorful a day when they hear the words from the God whom they thought was so "open and affirming": "Get away from, ye that work iniquity ... I never knew you."

May they be miraculously reached with the truth in love, before it's too late.

---

[Jorge]

In NT, in I Corinthians 6, there's a laundry list of things that will prevent one from inheriting the kingdom. In the NKJV, the word homosexual is used in this list. A Greek Orthodox gay had argued that this interpretation comes from two words in the Greek, which turn out to be "man-bed". He said that Paul, if he meant homosexual, he would have used the common word used at the time, but instead chose this phrase. What do you think?

The Greek word for homosexual in 1 Cor. 6 and 1 Tim 1 is arsenokoites:

1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
(Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

Every Greek Lexicon (even in every language outside of English) defines arsenokoites as homosexual. No other definition is given.

This word comes from two Greek words, arrhen (which means male) and koite:
1) a place for laying down, resting, sleeping in
1a) a bed, couch
2) the marriage bed
2a) of adultery
3) cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful 3a) sexual intercourse

Koite is the word from which we get our English word coitus.

Now notice that this word (arsenokoites) appears in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT written around 250 B.C.)
_meta_ arsenos _ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos_ (Lev. 18:22)
_koimêthê meta arsenos koitên gynaikos_ (Lev. 20:13)

These are the same verses which clearly denounce homosexuality in the OT.

The Bible of Paul's day was the Septuagint. He midfully applied the Levitical verses to 1 Cor. 6 and 1 Tim. 1. It is not just a coincidence.

In the English Bible, here are all the expressions used in 1Cor6:9- they are all 10 in agreement:

"sodomite" - NRSV (common term for homosexuals in early 20th century)
"abusers of themselves with mankind" - KJV
"homosexual perverts" - Todays English Version
"homosexual offenders" - NIV
"homosexuals" - NKJV
"homosexuals" - RSV
"homosexuals" - Amplified
"homosexuals" - Phillips
"homosexuals" - New Century
"homosexuals"- the New American Standard Bible (NASB)
1,000's of scholars and language experts agree that the scriptures clearly condemn homosexuality.
That is why all Bible translations, even those in foriegn languages say the same thing.

Even Aristotle and Lucian used
"arsenokoitai" referring to homosexual behavior.
(P. Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the New Testament," _Bibliotheca Sacra_ 140: 560 (Oct.-Dec. 1983), 351.)

[Jorge]

Get a load of this.
A Biblical prohibition against Old Testament drag queens;

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

[L.N. Smithee]

They can't conceive of devotion or friendship without sex, or even without sexual attraction. To them it's just inconceivable that Ruth loved Naomi as a mother.

Same as when they presume that because David and Jonathan loved each other more than they loved women, that means they were lovers. For heaven's sake, how cliche is it that men never let their girlfriends or their wives interfere with their brotherly friendships with their buddies?

In fact, I find it difficult to believe a sizable percentage of the members of the MCC really believe that the Bible supports the idea that David and Jonathan were homosexuals -- it's just that they feel they MUST believe it in order to feel they are acceptable to God without correcting their behavior.

Here's a good reference for scholarly refutation of the MCC and other "Christian" groups' homosexualization of Bible doctrine: Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, written by Joe Dallas, formerly of the MCC. Dallas is loaded for best shots the Gay-stapo can take, which is why you likely have not heard of him; the media stay away from him.

[tophat9000]

In for a dime, in for a dollar...If you're going straight to Hell

Ironic they will end up going "straight"

[Undivided Heart]

This is good. I hadn't thought about the Septuagint angle. The "external" references to Aristotle and Lucian are partcularly damning.

[Jorge]

In fact, I find it difficult to believe a sizable percentage of the members of the MCC really believe that the Bible supports the idea that David and Jonathan were homosexuals

Really..the idea that David who had 100s of female concubines, and even committed murder to get another man's wife....was actually gay is absurd.

But don't underestimate "gay Christian" capacity for self deciet.
It's amazing to see the contorted logic they will resort to in order to reinterpret perfectly clear scriptures in some alternate, gay friendly manner.

[Dazedcat]

Yeah I do agree with what you've said, but I think it's GOOD that this lunacy gets exposed........people reject it despite the attempt to get it shoved down our collective throats.

Similar to the idiocy that's going on in the public school system........once it's exposed, parents by and large get very vocal and protest (mostly anyway). So I say let the lunatics free from the asylum.....they'll NEVER take over anything.

Regards;

[TJFLSTRAT]

Errr, another degenerate church, where the flock leads the shepherd., Oh and by the way the answer is NO!

[glorygirl]

"There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been by men, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 19:12

Just thought I'd throw it out there, since no one else has.

Food for thought: can we equate a "eunuch" with a homosexual?

Nothing from Jesus on that.

[pray4liberty]

This sure proves Satan rules the world, doesn't it?

[Jorge]

"There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been by men, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19:12

Just thought I'd throw it out there, since no one else has.

Food for thought: can we equate a "eunuch" with a homosexual?

I say no.
First of all nowhere in the Bible is being a "eunuch" condemned.
Everywhere homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is condemned as sinful.

This verse says there are "eunuchs who have been made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."
The same Bible tells us that homosexuals will not enter heaven.

There is no comparison from a Biblical point of view.

[EdReform]

Bump

[EdReform]

"1,000's of scholars and language experts agree that the scriptures clearly condemn homosexuality. That is why all Bible translations, even those in foriegn languages say the same thing." Bump

[scripter]

Perhaps we should just stand back and let you argue with yourself.

That was good and got a LOL out of me. It's sad to see folks like mille99 arguing out of ignorance.

[John O]

No, go throw your daughters out to the rapists like Lott, that pillar of anti-homo virtuosity. Or better yet, go rape her yourself like so many other good church-going Christian men.

Standard SAD debating technique #2. If twisting the Word of God doesn't work, Attack the messenger. (using the Lot connection seems to be standard play also, do they send you folks to school for this?) Anything to avoid having to take responsibility for one's choices.

GSA(P)

[John O]

doesn't sound threatening or like Bible bashing to me.

...

Even with the best of intentions, translators and copyists are quite capable of human error.

Attack the divinely inspired and protected Word of God and you can twist it to say whatever you want. The Bible of today (KJV, NKJV etc) says exactly what God wants it to say. He defends His word from error. It has not been mistranslated, miscopied etc. In fact the most grevious errors are always introduced by trying to change His word to be more politically correct (such as the gender neutral bible or other abominations). These abominations are routinely rejected by God's people.

GSA(P)

[Charles_Bingley]

Holy Pouf, Batman!

[John O]

"I am objective in my analysis of everything, and you are not"

Let me clarify my statements for your then. I am objective on this issue and no one in this discussion afflicted with Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD) is. Let me explain why I state it this way.

1. Those who are afflicted with SAD but are not in the discussion are either not interested or are already aware that they have chosen their life and that they can change. Why would they argue with me when they agree with me. 2. Those who are afflicted with SAD but are still arguing are trying everything to defend (justify) their own choices rather than admit their sin and be healed. The SAD community would rather see it's members die of AIDS but be proud of being sick than see them be healed. If SAD cannot be cured why do all the SAD fanatics go ballistic whenever the topic comes up? Because if it's a sickness and not an inborn characteristic then they become accountable for their actions and their choices. Most SADs can't handle that. The 'homosexual filters' are the mindset of the SAD that everything has to do with defending their behavior. No thought or action that threatens their image of being unaccountable for their behavior is allowed to exist.

GSA(P)

[John O]

This word comes from two Greek words, arrhen (which means male) and koite: 1) a place for laying down, resting, sleeping in 1a) a bed, couch 2) the marriage bed 2a) of adultery 3) cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful 3a) sexual intercourse

Let me flesh this out a little (I just love this word choice here)

As Jorge pointed out Arsenokoites (Strongs number 733) is always translated homosexual (abusers of themselves with mankind etc). It comes from Arrhen (strongs 730) which always means male and Koite (Strongs number 2845) as defined above. Lets step through the possible definitions and see why 'homosexual' is the only valid translation here. 1. Male + place for laying down. So we have a male bed. Beds are neither male nor female. And if they were, why would we care that male furniture can't enter the kingdom? Fails the makes sense test. This one doesn't work.

2. Male + marriage bed. Since beds aren't male or female (see above) what about male marriage? We know that male to male marriage did not exist in Paul's time in Judaism (as it is outlawed in Leviticus). Therefore this definition is not internally consistent. Doesn't work.

3. Male + cohabitation. Makes sense on the outside, males can live together. In fact in Jewish tradition of those days a man often lived in his father's house until he got married. I would assume sharing the same room and possibly even the same bed with his brothers (looking at the size of families back then and the archeological size of the houses back then this is almost a certainty). This was both normal and allowed in the culture at that time. So, why would someone doing what was allowed and normal be disqualified from entering the kingdom? I can't come up with a reason. Seems this one fails internal consistency also. Doesn't work.

Which leads us to
3a Male + sexual intercourse. Since male sexual intercourse is already outlawed in Leviticus it makes perfect sense that they would be banned from the kingdom. Since all other possible definitions violate internal consistency of the Word this is the only possible translation.

Arsenkoites means homosexuals.

Note however that in this same scripture God tells us that the condition is curable. 1 Cor 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

"And such were some of you" Some of the target audience were homosexuals BUT ARE NOT ANYMORE! Homosexuality is curable!!!

GSA(P)

[John O]

Same as when they presume that because David and Jonathan loved each other more than they loved women, that means they were lovers. For heaven's sake, how cliche is it that men never let their girlfriends or their wives interfere with their brotherly friendships with their buddies?

This touches on one of the saddest damages that the SAD agenda has wreaked on our culture. Back in the 50's men could have friends, close friends, friends even closer than a brother, without anyone batting an eye. Today if two men are that close they are almost always assumed to be 'gay lovers'. This has caused many men to isolate themselves from others.

Unfortunately early isolation is one of the leading indicators of SAD. So by accusing the innocent of their own perversion the SADs have scattered a seed of perversion throughout our culture.

Men, especially Christian men, have to stand up and build accountable relationships with men again. Christian wives have got to allow their husbands to go out fishing with the guys (or whatever the guys want to do) they have to encourage their husbands to have friends. (within reason of course)

God Save America (Please)